Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

KENNETH JOSEPH LENNON

Address for return, of the Report to the Home Secretary from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the actions of police officers concerned with the case of Kenneth Joseph Lennon.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Mull and Scalpay

Mr. MacCormick: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to the Isle of Mull.

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to the island of Scalpay.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I have no plans at present for such visits but, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) on 20th March, I am always willing to consider or undertake visits where circumstances so warrant.

Mr. MacCormick: Does the Secretary of State for Scotland appreciate that if he is going to pay a visit to Mull and he wants to go direct to Tobermory, he had better go very quickly, because David MacBrayne Ltd. has announced plans to withdraw its call at the town of Tobermory, the chief town of the Island of Mull? Does he agree that that is a bad thing? Does he further agree that if the service were subsidised it could be continued in conjunction with the steamer service call at Tiree?

Mr. Ross: If that is the question the hon. Member wants answered, I should be grateful if he would put it on the Order Paper.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he visits Scalpay he will see a very progressive community, which has built up a fine fishing fleet and even has a shipping company with three coasters? At the same time, he will see a community that has the problem of an appalling freight cost doubled through having to take goods, to Harris from the mainland in the first place and then across to the Island of Scalpay. Will he make a quick decision on the views put to him by the delegation that saw his hon. Friend the Minister of State? May I thank the Minister for the time and attention he gave to the delegation?

Mr. Ross: I am aware of the prosperity of Scalpay. One must recollect that there was a time when it looked as though the island was going right down. It is thanks to the Labour Government and the Highlands and Islands Development Board that it has progressed as it has.
There are already Questions on the Order Paper about freight charges, which my hon. Friend will be answering. I suggest that if the hon. Member has a question about freight charges it would be far better to put it directly rather than in this indirect way.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I wonder whether the Secretary of State, on the way to the islands, would consider visiting local authorities in the west of Scotland to discuss the welcome announcement made yesterday about the dispersal of Civil Service jobs? In the course of doing that, will he ensure that not only Glasgow Council but other local authorities in the area with particular facilities to offer, such as education, housing and environmental facilities in Dumbartonshire are consulted? Will he draw to the attention of the Civil Service the unique environmental qualities of the islands, which we hope he will be visiting, which make for a very happy life in those parts?

Mr. Ross: Once again I welcome the remarks my hon. Friend has made about yesterday' announcement, but that is another matter.

Rents

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now


make a statement on his policy on rents after December.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): Details of my right hon. Friend's plans for the public sector were given in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) on 25th July. As regards the private sector, my right hon. Friend proposes to extend phasing to increases in rent for all categories of tenancy following registration of fair rents.

Mr. Taylor: Does that mean that for the private-rented houses of Scotland, apart from the introduction of phasing over a three-year period, the Government intend to continue the principles of the Housing Finance Act 1972, which was so bitterly condemned by the Labour Party?

Mr. Millan: No, I do not think that it means that. What it means is that we are extending the phasing in respect of private housing, and until we have had a chance to look at the whole system of determining rents for the private housing sector, this proposal will be of considerable help to the private tenant.

Mr. McElhone: I assure the Minister that the people of Scotland more than welcome the freezing of rents until May next year. We also welcome the steps outlined in the consultative document, which will soften the harshness of the Tory Rent Act.

Mr. Millan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure his views are widely accepted in Scotland.

Glasgow (Underpasses)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the timetable for the construction of the underpasses proposed for Great Western Road, Glasgow.

Mr. Millan: As my noble Friend the Minister of State has already indicated to the hon. Gentleman by letter, my right hon. Friend is not in a position to comment on this, as no firm proposals for the construction of underpasses at Great Western Road have been submitted to him by Glasgow Corporation.

Mr. Galbraith: When coming to a decision, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the strong local feeling against

underpasses and, indeed, the whole disastrous and unnecessary scheme for dualling this road? Does he see his right hon. Friend in the rôle of Prince Charming, the protector of beauty against the many rapes being perpetrated upon the Great Western Road and many other parts of Glasgow?

Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend fulfils many rôles and I dare say he can add that to his list. I am aware of the local feeling and this is one of the matters to be taken into account. However, we have not yet had proposals from the corporation.

Island Transport

Mr. Corrie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what conclusions he has come to on island transport, having spoken to the delegation from the counties concerned; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Millan: I had a full and very useful exchange with the delegation on 16th July when I undertook to initiate a review of the present arrangements for the support of shipping services to the islands. The result of this review will be made public as soon as possible.

Mr. Corrie: I thank the hon. Gentleman on behalf of that delegation for the talk that he had with it, but may I point out that the numbers of day trippers have never been as small as they have been this year and that hotels and boarding houses have never had such a poor turnover? Many firms are stopping supplies to the islanders. Will the hon. Gentleman look further at this problem to see what can be done to subsidise fares and essential goods?

Mr. Millan: As I told the delegation, and as I have told the hon. Gentleman before, we want to consider whether the present arrangements are the best or whether they can be improved.
We are still suffering from the effects of the three-day working week on the tourist industry. That is the general problem, as the Scottish Tourist Board pointed out in its annual report, published two or three weeks ago.

Mr. Grimond: When the Minister is carrying out his review, will he bear in


mind not only the increasing and extremely heavy burden of the freight, but the difficulties borne by many port authorities through delays in steel and rising costs. I have in mind in particular the important improvements at Lerwick and the roll-on/roll-off terminal at Stromness.

Mr. Millan: That is another question, but I am willing to look at that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman referred to the three-day working week. Will he acknowledge that one of the greatest burdens that the Scottish tourist trade has to carry this summer is the massive increases in cost as a result of his right hon. Friend's Budget? In particular, what help has the increase in petrol costs given to the tourist industry?

Mr. Millan: The criticism that I mentioned was specifically drawn attention to by the Scottish Tourist Board in its annual report, which is why I mentioned it. I do not accept that my right hon. Friend's Budget, taken in conjunction with the other economic measures of the Government, has had the kind of effect stated by the hon. Gentleman on the tourist industry or any other industry.

Housing (Cullingworth Report)

Mr. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made towards resolving the Scottish housing problems revealed in the report of the Cullingworth Committee.

Mr. Millan: Since the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee's report on "Scotland's Older Houses" was published in 1967 and up to the end of 1973, 112,000 houses classified as "unfit" or "below the tolerable standard" have been demolished in Scotland and 236,000 houses in both the public and private sectors have been improved with the aid of improvement grants.

Mr. Reid: In spite of that, will the Minister concede that the number of housing starts in Scotland has fallen off year after year? Last year, the number of new starts was the smallest for 18 years, and even when he was last in office the Minister did not achieve his own target of 50,000 houses. Will he further concede that, given the trend to

smaller families and urban dereliction, this is one of the most serious of Scottish problems? In view of these facts, will he consider reconvening the Cullingworth Committee to examine the problem?

Mr. Millan: I have no difficulty in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman about the record of the previous Government, because the number of houses started and completed by them showed a continual decline between 1970 and 1974.
On the other matters dealt with by the Cullingworth Report, my comment is that that report was produced in 1967. There was a much more recent opportunity, on the Housing (Scotland) Bill, to discuss these matters, and it is a pity that we did not have the benefit of the advice of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on that.

Mr. MacArthur: If the hon. Gentleman truly seeks to give a balanced picture of the housing position in Scotland, does he agree that what matters most is the quality of the housing in Scotland? Does he recall that he has just reminded the House that 236,000 houses in Scotland were improved, largely as a result of the improvement grants introduced by the Conservative Government, which he is so ready to criticise?

Mr. Millan: I certainly do not criticise the improvement grants, but the vast proportion of the number that I have quoted is in local authority housing. It is important to do this in the private sector, and that is one of the purposes of the recent housing Bill. Quality is important but, unfortunately, large numbers of people in Scotland do not have a house at all and we must, therefore, increase the number, too.

Mr. Steel: Will the Minister say by what date he hopes to see all houses in Scotland above the tolerable standard?

Mr. Millan: I think that it would be unrealistic to give a date.

Mr. Barrie Henderson: What plans has the Minister for discussing with local authorities the benefits that will flow to them and to the improvement of housing in Scotland from the Housing (Scotland) Bill that was initiated by the previous Government, and which he so skilfully put through the House this Session?

Mr. Millan: Obviously there will be continuing discussions on this but, as I made clear when the Bill was going through the House, a number of circulars on particular aspects of the Bill will be going out soon, so that we can make a good start in implementing the Bill's provisions.

Devolution

Mrs Winifred Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek a meeting with Lord Crowther-Hunt to discuss the question of self-government.

Mr. William Ross: I have, of course, had numerous discussions with Lord Crowther-Hunt on the question of devolution.

Mrs. Ewing: May I express to the Secretary of State the considerable satisfaction of the Scottish National Party group at the fact that Lord Crowther-Hunt has offered to come to Scotland and have discussions on the Scottish National Party's constitutional proposals?
Secondly, will the Secretary of State today give an assurance to the House that he will use all his considerable powers of persuasion with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to recall Parliament when the promised publication takes place during the recess, albeit delayed? If the Secretary of State cannot give the House this assurance today, will he give the reasons why he does not consider that a recall of Parliament is necessary to discuss a matter of such vital constitutional importance?

Mr. Ross: I cannot give the hon. Lady that assurance. This matter was relevant for discussion the other day. The discussions that Lord Crowther-Hunt has had have been very full indeed, both here and in Scotland. I was present at some of them, and at others both the Ministers of State in the Lords and the Commons were present. We are gathering opinions from a very wide field about the constitutional consultative document.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman ever have the nerve to meet Lord Crowther-Hunt again after the astonishing events in the early hours of Tuesday last, when we had a four hours' debate on the Kilbrandon Report, with not one contribution from the Government Front Benches—and without one

Scottish back-bench Labour Member being present? Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that this was outrageous, and insulting to the people of Scotland?

Mr. Ross: I think that probably more insulting to the people of Scotland was the fact that the last Conservative Government, in their first Queen's Speech, suggested that they would bring forward proposals for an elected Assembly. Almost four years went by, and we never saw these proposals, and, so far as I can gather, there is even a possibility of a shift from what they suggested then.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of fact, may I say, in relation to the last contribution, that I at least was here, and went to bed because the contributions were so preposterous?

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the number of representations he has received on the question of devolution, indicating how many of them express a desire for complete separation of Scottish government from that of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. William Ross: Up to the present time I have received comments from over 50 organisations on the schemes of devolution set out in the Government' consultative document. I have also had about 170 letters from members of the general public in Scotland, of whom 69 favoured separatism or self-government, though not always in precise terms.

Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend say whether precise terms were indicated by the Scottish National Party? Can he also say how many Scottish people he thinks know the meaning of "devolution"?
Will he publish in a White Paper the precise details of what the Scottish National Party stands for—because nobody in Scotland knows?

Mr. Ross: It is only fair to state that the Scottish National Party referred to its objective of independence, but, like the other organisations, it directed its reply in the main to the schemes of devolution set out in the consultative document.

Mr. George Reid: As some 25 Scottish Labour Members are missing this


morning and as no fewer than 39 were missing from this week's debate on Kilbrandon, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is indicative of his party's attitude to a Scots Government and Scots devolution?

Mr. Ross: I think the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. He is doing a quick count. Many a time I have done a quick count and never seen a single member of the Scottish National Party.

Improvement Grants

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider taking steps to assist those who will suffer the loss of a 75 per cent. rate of house improvement grant because their applications for grant were approved after 30th September 1973.

Mr. Millan: I have nothing to add to the reply given on 30th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small).

Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend aware that many thousands of people will lose 25 per cent. of the house improvement grant which they expected? No doubt he is also aware that I have written to the Minister of State in another place about retired people and people nearing retirement, who will suffer a substantial loss because of delays caused by the three-day working week, shortage of materials, and so on.
Is my hon. Friend also aware that one of the instances involved concerns a man whose house was set on fire by vandals after £1,000 had been spent on improvement work? Does he not feel that this warrants the exercise of some flexibility?

Mr. Millan: These matters have been debated already. This is a difficult matter, and there are bound to be hard cases which fall just on the wrong side of the line. In all the circumstances, the concession which was announced on 30th April seemed to us to represent the best answer.
It is possible, of course, for local authorities to help people who are suffering hardship, by means of loans, but I think that the grant arrangements must stand as we modified them in the announcement on 30th April. I am sorry that we cannot make any further improvement here.

Mr. Galbraith: Has this not been a quite exceptional year—utterly different from any other? Will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter? Many people, through no fault of their own, are failing to obtain the grants.

Mr. Millan: I accept that it has been a very exceptional year, with a three-day working week. We were not responsible for that. We have tried as far as possible to produce arrangements which would meet, generally, those people concerned, but I have neved disguised the fact that there would be hard cases.

Mr. Grimond: May I press the Minister again on this matter? Will he consider using the powers which exist under the Act to make an order to assist these people? Will he also look again at the possibility of at least paying the grant on work which has been done, even if the whole work has not been completed?

Mr. Millan: I think the essence of the scheme is that there was a completion date; that was the original date of 23rd June 1974. The essence of the modification was that there would not be a completion date, but the work had to be approved before 30th September 1973. If one changed that, for example, to 31st October—if that were practicable—or 31st December, there would still be hard cases involving people whose approvals came a few days later. Therefore, one does not remove the problem completely. I think that one simply has to accept that that is so.

Mr. Baxter: May I appeal to my hon. Friend to reconsider the position? As one who has practical experience as a building contractor, I know the difficulties that have been experienced in getting work carried out owing to the three-day working week and other factors. We agree that the three-day week is not the responsibility of the present Government, but it is right that we should take the matter into consideration. There are innocent people who have been endeavouring to get their work carried out in accordance with the desires of the Government, and it is through no fault of their own that they have been unable to do so.

Mr. Millan: I do not disagree with anything that my hon. Friend has said I repeat, however, that all these matters


were taken into account before we made the modification which we announced on 30th April. There is no question of our not taking these matters into account. They were all carefully considered when we made this statement. We recognised that there would be hard cases. In the circumstances it was inevitable, whatever one did, given that it was intended by the previous Government, from the inception of the scheme, that there would, in fact, be a closing date. That is something which we have to bear in mind. The closing date, of course, was originally 23rd June 1973 rather than 1974. Therefore, there was already a year's extension involved, to the credit of the previous Government.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Must the hon. Gentleman be so inflexible? Surely the point that really matters is that where people have suffered in this way it is through no fault of their own. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have brought this to the attention of the Scottish Office.
Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that although he said that whatever date was chosen there would still be hard cases, surely at later dates there would be far fewer hard cases, and the needs of far more people would be helped? I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that people who had counted on getting the grant are having difficulty in finding the extra money required to carry out the improvements.

Mr. Millan: As regards the extra money, I have already said that local authorities have the power to give loans in cases of hardship. There is no question of inflexibility. If one is to operate a scheme of this description, with a terminal date, there has to be some kind of terminal arrangement. Inevitably, given that there are terminal arrangements, some people will, unfortunately, fall on the wrong side of the line. The normal arrangements for 50 per cent. of grant are continuing, however, and under the new Housing Bill in housing action areas the grants may be 75 per cent., or may go up, in special cases, to as much as 90 per cent. Therefore, there is no question of the Government's treating the matter unsympathetically.

Beef Production

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the prospects for beef producers in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): There are good grounds for confidence in the prospects for beef production in Scotland. We have a quality product efficiently produced, and the new beef slaughter premium, together with the increased calf subsidy, gives our producers an assurance of fair returns through the coming autumn and winter.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that further action is needed to help the industry to recover from the Government's folly earlier this year? When he introduces these new actions, will he make certain that he takes full account of the type and quality of beef cattle bred in Scotland?

Mr. Brown: I am constantly being enlightened about the mysteries of agriculture, particularly in respect of beef production. I am told that it is a long-term industry, so I cannot imagine that if there are any worries and concern now they have all arisen since March of this year. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks. It is our aim, and always has been, to ensure a prosperous industry that is fair to the farmer and fair to the consumer, and consideration will be given to whatever steps need to be taken to achieve that.

Mr. Watt: Will the Minister look a little further than the ranches of Provan and come to the rest of Scotland and see herds of cattle that have been bred specifically for Europe? Will he urge his right hon. Friend to re-start the export of live cattle so that these animals can go to the markets for which they were bred and for which they are intended, where the farmers get a reasonable return for them?

Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that invitation to visit his attractive part of the country, but I suggest that I am more familiar with that area than he is with Provan. But this is a different question. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this matter arises out of the O'Brien Report. It is a separate subject, and an


assurance has been given that it will be discussed in the House before any changes are made.

Mr. Stodart: Is the Minister not surprised at the conversion of the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) to the virtues of the Common Market?

Mr. Brown: There are obviously advantages and disadvantages to be gained from the Common Market. I am aware of the slightly unscrupulous attempts by certain Members to exploit some of the practical difficulties that have arisen, but more responsibility rests on the previous Government than on myself for some of these matters.

Aberdeen (Infrastructure)

Mr. Fairgrieve: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange for there to be a substantial cash injection into the infrastructure serving the Aberdeen area.

Mr. Millan: The main constraints in the area are shortages of skilled men and materials rather than of cash.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether it is common sense to spend more than £2,000 million of taxpayers' money to nationalise, for doctrinaire reasons, the United Kingdom oil industry—which no Government can run, anyway—when such money could be far better spent on the infrastructure of Aberdeen, the oil capital of Europe—on schools, roads, houses, and so on?

Mr. Millan: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures, but in any case this will be an extremely useful, productive and profitable investment for the taxpayers and citizens of this country, and I am very happy that the Government have decided to take these steps.
Infrastructure raises the problem not of cash but resources. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will welcome the announcement made yesterday that £6 million is to be spent on Aberdeen Airport. This is the sort of practical help that the Government are giving to the hon. Gentleman's area, and I am sorry that he looks so miserable about it.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: Does the Minister accept that the problem of a shortage of skilled labour will not be overcome in the North-East until ade-

quate housing is provided? Does he also accept that there must be an acceleration in the housing programme and in the availability of resources for housing in the North-East, and will he deal sympathetically with the request from Aberdeen County Council for special assistance for Aberdeenshire, in view of the additional expenditure that it is having to lay out because of oil-related development?

Mr. Millan: I agree that we need more houses in this area. We are doing everything possible to see that the housing programme is speeded up there, but the problem is not one of cash but of resources. If the hon. Gentleman and anyone else have particular ideas about the way in which we might help, I should be willing to look at them.
As for the rate burden, we have now asked local authorities in the oil-related areas to give us information about the additional burdens that they are bearing. We are looking at that matter, and I hope that we shall shortly be able to announce proposals for helping them to bear some of that burden.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that within the next month or two the Government will produce a White Paper setting out in great detail exactly what has been done about infrastructure for oil development, so that the people of Scotland may understand that the problem is being adequately handled by the present Government?

Mr. Millan: That is an interesting suggestion. I would not guarantee a White Paper, but I promise to send my hon. Friend something that he will find very useful for his election address.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman wake up at last to the fact that the taxpayers of Britain do not want their tax or their savings to be squandered by the present Government on mad schemes of nationalisation?

Mr. Millan: That seems to be just a little away from the question of infrastructure serving the Aberdeen area.

Mr. Sproat: May I correct the Minister on that? It is not at all irrelevant. My hon. Friend pointed out that it is proposed to spend £2,000 million on the


British National Oil Corporation, and that this money ought to be spent on infrastructure, particularly roads and houses, and providing a fund to help to relieve the intolerable strain being placed on local authority finances.

Mr. Millan: I have answered all these questions before. I remember that what was worrying the hon. Gentleman the last time we had Questions was the matter of improvements at Aberdeen harbour. Perhaps he will again be good enough to thank the Government for seeing that these improvements are going ahead—another example of practical help for his area.

Milk Production

Sir John Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made as to the level of milk production in Scotland in the months October 1974 to March 1975; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Present indications suggest that Scottish milk production between October and March next will be around the level of the same period last year. It is Government policy to secure maximum economic production of milk in the country. The recent increase in the calf subsidy and the beef premium payable from next month will both be of assistance to the dairy sector.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that all the indications of recent months point to the likelihood of a shortage of milk? Having just experienced a shortage of sugar in Scotland, we surely do not want to have a shortage of milk. In addition, are we not likely to arrive at a situation, by the end of next winter, in which the cost of production of a pint of milk is likely to be twice that which the public is paying for it?

Mr. Brown: There are two questions here. I remind the hon. Member that production in March 1974 was 6·7 per cent below that in March 1973—I certainly do not take responsibility for that drop—so there is concern about increasing the levels of production. I know that there is a problem on the manufacturing side. I can only repeat that I have asked for detailed representations from the milk marketing boards, and they are in the

process of being made. They will be given sympathetic and urgent consideration.

Mr. Baxter: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how the beef premium will help the dairy farmer? Is he aware that the keeping of cattle in a shed ready for the fatstock market, for killing, for one or two months in order to gain the advantage of the premium means that they will be eating their heads off and making no beef? It will be a costly way of manuring the fields of Scotland.

Mr. Brown: It may be a costly way of manuring the fields, but if my hon. Friend is any example of a typical farmer, he has done quite well out of it and I have no reason to doubt that he will continue to prosper.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I am glad that the Minister has been able to assure the tea drinkers of Scotland that they will have plenty of milk for their tea! But I believe that the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) mentioned sugar. As the hon. Member is very flexible and broadminded, and as this is the last day before the recess, may we please be told when we shall have enough sugar for the tea as well?

Mr. Brown: This is a warning to me not to indulge in informal discussions with the hon. Gentleman. I accept that there is some concern about the sugar situation and I hope that one of my right hon. Friends will be able to comment on it.

Mr. McElhone: Surely the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) will recognise that the Government have taken steps to keep the price of a pint of milk under control? I should say, also, that there is no justification for the statement—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members tend to be making speeches this morning.

Mr. McElhone: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I should say that the hon. Member for Fife, East should be aware of the point I have made about the price of milk. Is the Minister aware that our report from the Select Committee on Expenditure in the next day or two, on the subject of milk production, will bring a great deal of illumination to the hon. Member for Fife, East?

Mr. Brown: I think all hon. Members will recognise that because of the subsidies to the consumer to hold down the price of milk, there has been an increase in the consumption of milk, which I think is desirable. But it obviously presents problems for the industry, and, as I have already said, we shall give it every consideration when the detailed representations have been made.

Mr. MacCormick: Will the Minister say when these consumer milk subsidies will be applied to milk produced in the islands which are outside the scheme operated by the milk marketing boards?

Mr. Brown: We gave an extension to the islands which I thought had been received with great satisfaction. It had never been done before, and I should have thought that the hon. Member would at least have complimented the Government on taking that step.

Roads (Local Authority Projects)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take action to end the delay in approving essential local authority road projects; and to what extent this delay is due to the allocation of resources being diverted to priority projects in the north of Scotland.

Mr. Millan: The need to restrain capital expenditure has meant that some local authority road projects have been delayed, but the position is kept under constant review so that delayed schemes may be started as soon as possible. The priority being given to oil-related schemes has not been at the expense of the allocations available for projects elsewhere in Scotland.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer will be appreciated, because councils in Scotland have the definite impression that essential local road development projects are being held up because the moneys which should be used for those purposes are being diverted to the North? Will the Minister give an assurance that, as oil is a national asset, the cost of these road projects arising from the oil boom will be met out of the National Road Fund and certainly not out of the Scottish allocation?

Mr. Millan: I think that there has been a misunderstanding about this, but

I repeat that the priority being given to oil-related schemes has not been at the expense of roads elsewhere, and the 20 per cent. cut announced by the previous Government in expenditure for the present year has not applied to oil schemes; but that has not been made up by greater cuts elsewhere. I am happy to give that assurance.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Is the Minister aware that the inner road in Edinburgh can be delayed for ever?

Mr. Millan: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's strong views on that matter. I do not think that it would be safe for me to commit myself to saying whether I agree with them.

Council Office Development

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department will give advice to the new local authorities in Scotland with a view to curtailing expenditure on council office development.

Mr. Millan: Authorities are already aware that approval can be given only for office building that my right hon. Friend considers essential.

Mr. Steel: Does the Minister agree that the people of Scotland will express astonishment if the creation of fewer local authorities is to be accompanied by an orgy of council office building? Will the Minister use his powers in granting loan sanction and look carefully at applications, such as that from the Ettrick and Lauderdale District Council for a building at present costing over £600,000 when existing accommodation could possibly be improved and made satisfactory?

Mr. Millan: I know of the situation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I can only repeat that this application, like any other applications for council buildings, will be rigorously examined. Only essential projects will be allowed to go ahead.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Minister also bear in mind the concern being expressed in some areas of Scotland, particularly the Tayside region, about the policy of the new regional authority in proceeding to appoint a large number of


salaried posts beyond those which were initially recommended by the advisory commission?

Mr. Millan: That is rather a different question, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the Lords has already spoken to the local authority associations about the need for economy, asking them not to build up excessive numbers of staff. I have no reason to suppose that the generality of new local authorities in Scotland are unaware of the Government's view about the need for economy.

House Building

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the present level of house construction in the north and north-east of Scotland.

Mr. Millan: I shall not be satisfied until all outstanding housing needs have been met. Local authorities and the Scottish Special Housing Association are building houses as quickly as they can in the north and north-east of Scotland. I shall continue to give them every encouragement in their task.

Mr. Sproat: I am grateful to the Minister and to his predecessors for the help that is being given, but will not the Minister accept that the shortage of housing is the biggest single need in the North-East at present, and that we are disastrously behind target? Does the Minister realise that in the decade ending in 1981 an estimated population increase of about 50,000 persons is expected in the area. Does he accept the report of the North-East of Scotland Joint Advisory Committee that unless something urgent is done about the housing drive, oil-related programmes will have to be cancelled or postponed?

Mr. Millan: I am aware of the problems in the area and I have spoken to the local authorities about them, as, indeed, has my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the other place. The hon. Gentleman is very free with his generalities about problems, but he does not make much in the way of a practical contribution to how they may be solved.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Are there hard facts on the likely population explosion? It is often talked about, but one would

like to have figures broken down, if possible, into the various local authority areas, so that local authorities can make sensible forward plans for the number of houses they need. May I make one "plug" for my constituency, which is increasing in population for reasons in addition to oil-related benefits? The first reason is that there are two bases there and the second reason is that it is such a desirable place that many people from all parts of the United Kingdom want to live there. May I ask for some statistics on population in a forward sense?

Mr. Millan: I shall see whether I can provide them, but, again, I have no reason to think that local authorities are not aware of the problems. They are very much aware of the problems, and arrangements are being made to help them as much as possible, both in the North-East—as I have already mentioned—and through the Moray Firth Working Party, on which local authorities, the Scottish Office and other agencies are represented. We are aware of the problems, and everything possible is being done to produce practical solutions to them, but I am always willing to listen to practical suggestions.

Mr. Small: Will the Minister tell us from his experience whether there are willing sellers and willing buyers of land, or would compulsory purchase orders be required in order to make progress?

Mr. Millan: The situation varies in different areas. Some local authorities, for example, have been very good about building up a land bank in advance. This is a development which, within the limitations of the finance involved, I certainly wish to encourage.

Offshore Oil (Norway)

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Norway to examine their planning laws in respect of offshore oil development.

Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend the Minister of State visited Norway from 3rd to 6th June when he had general discussion with the Norwegian Government Petroleum Directorate, with Statoil, the Government oil company, and with the local authority in Stavanger, and had the


opportunity to see at first hand and discuss the working of the Norwegian planning system as it affects oil.

Mr. Wilson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he not accept that two of the secrets of the success of the Norwegian oil development have been, first, the ability to take quick decisions in relation to planning matters and, secondly, to gear the rate of exploration to maximising Norwegian involvement in the industrial opportunities while conserving the interests of the environment and the economy of Norway?

Mr. Ross: It is not always entirely fair to make comparisons, because the economic circumstances, consumption of energy of all kinds, are very different. The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the speed of decision. He will be aware, of course, that it is very dangerous to make that kind of statement, because in Norway no public inquiry system is involved. If that system were denied the people of Scotland, I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain about it.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State invite some senior Norwegian Ministers here so that they may learn at first hand about some of the advantages that we have in these procedures? Is it not a case of seeing fields to be rather greener on the other side of the North Sea? There are quite a number of Norwegians who think that we do many of these things rather better than they do in Norway.

Mr. Ross: There is something to be gained by having a look at other people's planning procedures, but we must not forget that the situation is entirely different. The Norwegians are fortunate in having available deep water at places where population, infrastructure and other facilities already exist. For instance, in Stavanger one can have platform building of a kind which would create difficulties in Scotland because of the limited number of places available so far. So we should be careful about that.
We appreciate, too, that recently a greater measure of central control has been instituted in Norway because of concern about the environment and because of concern to ensure maximum development in areas where infrastructure and population now exist.

Mr. Sproat: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that I entirely agree with him about the need to emphasise the total difference between United Kingdom requirements and those of Norway—a difference between 8 million tons of oil a year and 100 million tons of oil a year? Will he further recognise that Norwegian planning procedures are not so very much in front of ours? It was only a few months ago that the Norwegians instituted designated sites for oil development, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will publish those in the autumn of this year. Further, will he utterly reject the Norwegian plan of setting up Statoil, and reject the British parallel of the British National Oil Corporation? Since his hon. Friend asked for suggestions for helping the infrastructure, will he spend on infrastructure the £2,000 million that he says he is going to spend on the BNOC?

Mr. Ross: It is about time the hon. Gentleman made up his mind. One minute he castigates us about the British National Oil Corporation and the next he asks that it be sited in Aberdeen.

Hotels (Fire Precautions)

Mr. Anthony Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications in respect of hotels and boarding houses under the Fire Precautions (Loans) Order 1973 have been made to local authorities inside and outside the development area, respectively.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The administration of the Fire Precautions (Loans) Order is a matter for the local authorities and I regret that information on the total number of applications made in Scotland is not available. I understand that two applications have been received in respect of premises outside the development area.

Mr. Stodart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that does not seem very good progress in tackling something that has caused considerable alarm? Is he prepared to comment on the question whether the apparently very small number of applications being made outside the development area, namely, in Edinburgh, is caused by the exclusion of Edinburgh from the development area? Would this not be a good reason for giving Edinburgh full development area status?

Mr. Brown: The last point is not a question for me. I am sorry if the hon. Member has tried to leave the impression that this administration has been lax in its responsibilities. I intended to compliment the previous administration on introducing the order.
The fact that it has not been very effective is clearly a matter that should be pursued. Since the intention was to help small boarding-house keepers and the owners of small hotels with fewer than 25 beds. I thought that the whole House would be concerned to ensure that they were aware of the facilities for assistance now available.

A9 (Improvements)

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will publish a list of those sections of the A9 where improvements are to be undertaken, together with the expected dates of completion.

Mr. Millan: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the expected completion dates of the four schemes now in progress. I cannot forecast completion dates for the schemes on the remainder of the 137 miles from Perth to Ardullie until the procedural formalities and engineering plans are completed and contracts let.

Mr. Johnston: Will the Minister, however, deny the strong rumour that is going around at the moment that certain sections of the A9 improvement, authorised by the previous administration, are to be delayed by the present Government?

Mr. Millan: Yes, I can deny that. I am not sure where these rumours come from or whether they are spread innocently or maliciously; but I can deny them.

The following is the information:


Scheme
Expected Completion Date


Almond Bridge and approaches
August 1975


Drumochter Lodge to Crubenmore.
May 1976


Kessock Bridge approaches
June 1975


Duncanston to Ardullie (including preliminary work on the crossing of the Cromarty Firth).
August 1975

Law of the Sea Conference

Mr. Douglas Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to pay a visit to Caracas to attend the Law of the Sea Conference.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

Mr. Henderson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he bear in mind that an undertaking was given at Question Time previously that if the circumstances warranted it the Secretary of State would consider the possibility of visiting Caracas?
Will the Under-Secretary tell us what plans he has for keeping hon. Members informed of progress and developments there, in so far as they relate to Scotland? Will he reiterate the undertaking that, if he thinks it desirable, he will attend the conference?

Mr. Brown: If hon. Members keep up pressure, I dare say I can be tempted to visit the conference. It appears to be lasting a considerable time.
Hon. Members will appreciate that after the initial opening statement by Government representatives, most of the discussions on a wide variety of topics have taken place at official level. The hon. Member will appreciate that Scottish interests are well represented and will be well looked after.
Naturally, I can give the assurance that, since this is an important conference, it will be for the House in future to find ways and means of discussing any of the ideas or recommendations that come from it.

Planning Applications

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for speeding up the process for dealing with planning applications referred to him.

Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend's Department is conducting an exhaustive review of the management of planning, including all aspects of the planning process.

Mr. Gray: Will the Minister undertake to make special investigations into the decision-making process within the


Scottish Development Department, and particularly within the road section of that department? Is he aware that developments in all affected areas of the country are now being held up due to what can only be described as bureaucratic bumbledom?

Mr. Millan: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in another place about some individual matters in his own constituency. I am anxious that there should be no delay in decision making in the Scottish Office or elsewhere.
This is, of course, only one part of the planning process, and the whole of the planning process is now under review.

LAW SOCIETY

Mr. Sproat: asked the Lord Advocate when he is next to meet representatives of the Law Society.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I have an arrangement whereby I meet the President of the Law Society of Scotland every month to discuss current problems. In addition, I meet him on other occasions when he asks for a special meeting.

Mr. Sproat: Will the Lord Advocate confirm that the Law Society is currently studying ways of speeding up and improving our planning procedure? Does he think that the Law Society will soon be able to put its conclusions to him? If not, when does he expect the Law Society's conclusions to be reached? Will he say what proposals he would put to the Law Society for its consideration during its study of this important subject?

The Lord Advocate: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's last point, I should require notice of that question. As to the first part of his supplementary question I suggest that he has the wrong end of the stick. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland convened a working group in May of this year to examine the possibilities of simplification of planning procedures. The group has met twice and it is hoped to see the first fruits of its work this autumn.

Mr. Barry Henderson: When the Lord Advocate has met the Law Commission, has he discussed what would be an appropriate definition of Scottish citizenship? What problems might arise under the property laws connected with persons who may or may not meet the requirements of such a definition?

The Lord Advocate: That is not a matter which I have discussed with the Law Society of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Law Commission, but in my answers I have been referring to the Law Society of Scotland. I do not think that anyone in the Law Society of Scotland or in my Office has any difficulty about knowing what determines whether a person enjoys Scottish citizenship.

Mr. Gray: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman next meets representatives of the Law Society of Scotland, will he discuss with them whether they feel that the powers held by them at present are sufficiently strong to deal with members of the legal profession who perhaps do not always maintain the highest standards of that profession?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Gentleman may care to know that the Law Society itself, which is the best guardian of professional propriety, is concerned that an appropriate Solicitors (Scotland) Bill should be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: When the Lord Advocate next has a discussion with the representatives of the Law Society, will he once again consider that long-discussed matter of divorce in the sheriff courts?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Lady is right to raise that matter, but it is a topic that is not without controversy. However, the subject is constantly under discussion in Scotland by the Law Society of Scotland and other bodies.

ACTS OF PARLIAMENT (REPEAL)

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: asked the Lord Advocate what Acts of Parliament he currently has under consideration for repeal as being obsolete.

The Lord Advocate: The repeal of obsolete and unnecessary statutes is a matter which is under continuous review by the Scottish Law Commission, along with the Law Commission, and reports containing proposals for repeals are periodically placed before Parliament.

Mr. Hutchison: I am grateful for that reply, and to know that the Lord Advocate has the matter in hand. Will he consider taking two other steps? First, when we have Bills before Parliament, will he make certain that they are self-contained and not full of cross-references to other Acts? Secondly, to solve our general difficulties, will he see that we have rather less legislation?

The Lord Advocate: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's second question, on reflection he may feel that there is much necessary legislation—particularly in relation to the matter of non-controversial law reform in Scotland—which we wish to see on the statute book.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's first question, that is a matter in which I personally have a great interest—to see that our statutes are made as clear and as concise as possible. I am glad to say that that view finds favour in quite a few quarters.

COUNCIL ON CRIME

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Lord Advocate when he last met the Council on Crime.

The Lord Advocate: I attended the last meting of the Scottish Council on Crime, which was on Friday 7th June 1974.

Mr. MacArthur: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman next meets the council, will he seek its views on the present powers of children's panels? Are the powers adequate to deal effectively with juvenile vandalism?

The Lord Advocate: I think that I have already told the House that that matter is under consideration by the Scottish Council on Crime.
Vandalism is a wider problem. I should have thought that, on the whole, it affected youths perhaps even more than it affected children who appear before

children's panels. But vandalism is a very difficult question and if the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions about how it should be dealt with, my right hon. Friend and I will be very glad to receive them.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the people of Scotland are utterly sick and fed up with the vandalism that is now taking place, and that hard-hitting sentences are required?

The Lord Advocate: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I am bound to say that experience suggests that sheer severity of penalty is not the most effective way of dealing with this problem.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Although he has expressed a contrary opinion, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this is a very urgent and serious problem in many parts of Scotland? Surely there is a case for his taking the initiative of bringing together the top legal minds and the Council on Crime, as well as others who may be able to help, to see whether, together, they can find an answer to what is becoming an alarming problem in some parts of Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: I accept that that is a useful suggestion. Indeed, steps have already been taken in that direction, and the Scottish Council on Crime deserves considerable credit for it. In certain cases in which vandalism is serious, it is possible—without accepting the hon. Member's suggestion—that charges in connection with such crimes could be referred to the sheriff courts rather than be dealt with by lower courts.

CYPRUS

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): With your permission, Mr. Speaker. I will make a statement on Cyprus.
Yesterday evening at 10 p.m. I signed with the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey the declaration which we had negotiated during a period of six days.
I am placing a copy of this declaration and of the statement by the three Governments which accompanied it in the Library of the House.
We met against a background of numerous allegations that the ceasefire was being violated and this did not improve the atmosphere during the period of negotiation. Nevertheless, I would like to pay tribute to the statesmanship of the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey and their Governments which made this declaration possible. I am glad to say that both Governments have welcomed the declaration.
Members of the House will wish to study the declaration and I will not go through it in detail today. But let me emphasise that the arrangements made under it are temporary. We must move on as soon as possible to better and more permanent arrangements.
The declaration is the best response which the guarantor Powers could make to the request placed before them by Security Council Resolution 353.
As regards the immediate steps to maintain security in Cyprus, we agreed that the areas controlled by opposing forces would not be extended; that all forces regular and irregular should desist from hostile activity; and that a security zone should be established by representatives of Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom in consultation with the United Nations force.
As regards the measures to bring a return of confidence to the two communities, we agreed that National Guard forces should evacuate Turkish enclaves. In these enclaves the communities would continue to have their own security forces but the United Nations force would also help with protection and security. Detained military personnel and civilians will be exchanged or released under the International Red Cross.
As regards the future, we shall be meeting again from the evening of 8th August to discuss the longer-term constitutional issues. The representatives of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities will be invited to join us.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a necessarily incomplete summary of the main provisions of the declaration. It is not a perfect document, but Greece and Turkey have, I believe, been brought back from the brink of war and what we have done in Geneva will help to keep the peace

and give everyone a chance of moving on to the second and more important phase of making a peace—a peace which will last and which will create the essential confidence among the communities which has been lacking.
The immediate aim had to be to remove the risk of war, but our abiding concern is the welfare of the people of Cyprus. Cyprus will not flourish as long as it remains an armed camp. We must do our utmost to secure compliance with Resolution 353 of the Security Council in all its aspects, including its military provisions, as well as the resolution of the constitutional problems of Cyprus in such a manner as will command the confidence of all its peoples.
I must say a word, Mr. Speaker, about the situation in the island itself. There have been a considerable number of breaches of the ceasefire called for by the United Nations on 22nd July, but it is the intention of the Foreign Ministers and their Governments that these should now cease and that life should gradaully return to normal.
The withdrawal of United Kingdom citizens and other friendly nationals into the sovereign base areas and the subsequent evacuation to Britain of those who wished to leave the island have gone smoothly. The Royal Air Force has flown more than 9,000 people to Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sure the House will agree with me that in the wholly exceptional circumstances obtaining in Cyprus it would be right to depart from the established Treasury practice and to make no charge against individual United Kingdom citizens for their evacuation.
In addition to the two deaths to which I referred in my statement of 22nd July, I must report with great regret that four other British residents of the Kyrenia area were killed last week. I have assured their families of the sincere sympathy of the House.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to all those who have been involved during these anxious days in trying to keep the peace or to help individuals who have suffered from the hostilities. There will be difficult days ahead and much more work is yet to be done, but we have made a start.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I wish at once to express the gratitude of the whole House to the right hon. Gentleman for having come at the earliest possible moment to give us this statement after six grinding and critical days. I think, too, it gives us all satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to play an important part in bringing the Greek and Turkish Foreign Ministers together and that the three of them have been able to start the process of reconciliation.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that we are to have a short debate today about Cyprus. I would prefer to raise any points I have if I were so lucky as to catch your eye during that short discussion. I hasten to add that it would be most unreasonable to ask the Secretary of State to remain.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the righ hon. Gentleman for all that he said. If I happend to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, or even had an implicit assurance of that, I should be glad to remain.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the Foreign Secretary seen the Early Day Motion, got together at the very shortest notice last night after the announcement on the BBC nine o'clock news, congratulating him on his tireless efforts, and signed by 30 of his colleagues from the parliamentary Labour Party foreign affairs group, often of rather diverse views on policy? Is he aware that his colleagues take some vicarious pride in his grit and tenancity?

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged. I want to emphasise that we have only made a start. The most difficult days lie ahead in this situation. The sessions we are to have next week, although not nearly as dramatic as those we have just emerged from, will be much tougher in terms of the attitude that may be taken by both sides. If there is one thing that has pleased me over the past six days, it is the influence this country has. I have been proud of Britain during the last week.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I warmly associate all of us on the Liberal bench with the congratulations already offered to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure we all hope he will soon be able to have a prolonged period of sleep without any interruption.
May I ask him two quick questions? First, the United Nations will obviously have a very important rôle to play in the weeks and months ahead. Can the Foreign Secretary give us any indication of the size of force that would be required what the cost is likely to be, and whether he is satisfied that the financing of the operation can reasonably be met?
Secondly, will he indicate, in the discussions on the long-term constitutional issues to which he referred, from where the representation of the Greek community will be drawn in regard to the existing leadership of Cyprus and the previous leadership of Cyprus?
Finally, can he assure us that the Government will continue to act to discourage the presence in the island of non-Cypriot military forces not associated with the United Nations?

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to to the hon. Gentleman. I am not at all sure that I was any worse off out there than the House of Commons seems to have been this week with its all-night sessions.
Regarding the United Nations forces, there were 2,400 there at the beginning of the recent difficulties. That force, by 4th August, will rise to 4,328—if they all arrive. The British contingent is a substantial one. We thought it right to pledge an immediate increase to the United Nations, especially around Nicosia Airport. The 16th/5th Lancers and others have played a very steadying rôle in what could have been a most critical situation.
As regards financing, I do not have any figures about that with me at the moment.
The representation of the Greek community at the talks is a matter which concerned the Foreign Ministers. It is a matter for the communities in the island to decide, and it is obviously a delicate matter. But I understand from Mr. Mavros, the Greek Foreign Minister, that it is not the intention of Archbishop Makarios to proceed to the talks as we start them next week. I understand, althought it is for the Greek-Cypriot community to decide, that it will be the acting-President, Mr. Clerides, who will attend.
On the third point—the withdrawal of non-Cypriot forces—the constitution has


not been observed in a number of ways for many years. I do not know whether we can get it put right, but certainly this is an opportunity to do so. No island can flourish if one has, in one and the same area, a Greek National Guard, Turkish Freedom fighters, a Greek armed contingent, a Turkish armed contingent, the United Nations forces and now, of course, the Turkish Army itself. I do not know how any small island can expect to thrive under that. It must be our objective to try to reduce this to reasonable proportions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am in difficulty. We have three statements and a Ten Minute Rule Bill as well as the debate on Cyprus. It may be for the convenience of the House, therefore, if I slightly extend the time of the debate on Cyprus and take a little time off each of the other debates, being fair to each Member who has a topic for debate. We shall go on, therefore, to the next statement. Mr. Benn.

CONCORDE

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): With permission, I should like to make a brief statement on the future of Concorde.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already reported to the House that he has agreed with the French President that the 16 aircraft already in production should go ahead, but no further commitment was made.
I hope to find an early opportunity to discuss the detailed terms and conditions for completion of the 16 aircraft with my French opposite number the Secretary of State for Transport, M. Cavaille. I shall report to the House again after that meeting. I have every hope that this will put us in a position to press on with the project and ensure that Concorde enters service with British Airways and Air France at the earliest possible date.
The development of Concorde to a point at which entry into service is some 18 months away is a tremendous achievement by all concerned both in Britain and in France. The recent series of transatlantic flights were an impressive demonstration of Concorde's reliability in conditions similar to airline operation. They are due to be followed up by an extended

series of route-proving flights in the first half of next year.
The manufacturers will continue their efforts to sell Concorde. Serious negotiations for the sale of two aircraft are in progress with Iranair, and the first British production aircraft, Series 202, is to make a demonstration flight to Teheran next week.
I should like to thank all those concerned with Concorde for their patience during the long uncertainty which has surrounded the project in the first half of this year and which we now hope to see resolved. We must redouble our efforts to ensure that Concorde is a success.

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the whole House will join in the Secretary of State's remarks about the dramatic aviation achievements of Concorde on the North Atlantic in recent weeks.
Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House, first, what are the latest costs for the development of the project? Second, what are the latest costs for the production of the first 16, and the outcome of the likely trading position on the sale of those 16? Third, the Minister says that he hopes that we shall press on with the project, but at what time does he need to take a decision on further production beyond 16? Fourth, what estimates has he received of the employment prospects on the project over the next 12 months?

Mr. Benn: With regard to the first question about the exact figures, I am committed by an earlier statement to give the House further figures following those that I published in March. If the hon. Gentleman would allow me, I should like to do that in an orderly way at an appropriate moment. I am not in a position to give updated figures today.
On the second point about employment—

Mr. Heseltine: Costs of production.

Mr. Benn: Yes. That will be covered by what I have just said. On the second point about employment, I think that the House recognises—this is why the review took place—that whereas we had originally hoped that, when the first orders were placed, the other options would be converted into orders, that has not in fact developed. In the discussions that


my right hon. Friend had with the President of France, the agreement was to produce the 16 aircraft. This creates problems which it is my intention to discuss with the management and unions concerned.

Mr. Palmer: Can the aircraft workers of all grades in Bristol and district—my right hon. Friend and I share a common interest in the representation of Bristol—now look forward to a period of settled employment in work on this great project of which they are rightly proud?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend rightly points to another capacity in which I have an interest. I think that all those working on the Concorde over the years have learned to live with a measure of uncertainty, and it is very much to their credit that they have done so. What I promised them, and have always promised them, is that I should be entirely candid and truthful, whether the news was good or bad. I fulfilled that pledge in the statement that I made in the House in March, and I have invited them to come and see me to discuss the implications of the statement that I have now made.

Mr. Pattie: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is great disappointment at BAC Weybridge, in my constituency, at the failure to order materials for the further three aircraft, and does he not feel that this will reduce our ability to meet new orders once the aircraft comes into service in 1976?

Mr. Benn: I appreciate all the anxieties that surround this project because I lived with them for some time. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the delegation to see me recently in order to explain fully and candidly the nature of the special problems at Weybridge. But I believe that the House must have due regard also for public expenditure. It cannot contemplate ordering to put Concorde on the shelf against possible future orders. I think it better that all concerned—the workers, the management, the local communities and the House itself—should be confronted with the inevitable difficulties in which this decision involves us all.

Mr. David Steel: May I press the Secretary of State to give the House one figure, that is, the total expected cost to the taxpayer of the 16 aircraft programme? Would he say also that the Government do not intend to enter into any further commitment to build future aircraft until the 16 have got firm orders from a buyer?

Mr. Benn: I have dealt with the latter question in the answer I have just given. We do not think it right to order for the shelf. I think that everybody, even those involved in the aircraft, must understand that. On the total cost, I am committed, as I said, to make a full statement. A number of representations were made to me about the figures published in March, representations coming from the management and from British Airways and also from the unions and the communities involved. If the hon. Gentleman would allow me, I should like to make a statement at an appropriate moment with full figures.

Mr. Terry Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep sense of gratitude felt by the aircraft workers in the city of Bristol for his statement today and also for the personal part that he has played in safeguarding the work for the industry? Two things now need to be clarified. First, the flight corridors for Concorde need quickly to be finalised if any sales are to be made. Second, we all recognise that before the other three are proceeded with there must be some definite orders for the aircraft. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that every step is being taken by BAC to sell this aircraft in a positive way?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I have had the difficulty, which I think he appreciates, of wider responsibilities for public expenditure and the future of the aircraft industry, as well as my known connection with the people in Bristol, who have been very patient in understanding that I had to discharge those responsibilities in a way which took account of the full national responsibility—not always a very easy thing to have to do.
The flight authorisations—the capacity of Concorde to land at key airports—have always been seen to be absolutely central to the success of the aircraft. During the period of review it was not


possible to pursue these with perhaps the single-mindedness that will now be possible, but I have had the opportunity of discussing this with some American authorities and others, and I think that my hon. Friend may be sure that we shall see that the rights that Concorde needs to fly into these key airports will be pursued by both the Governments, and by the manufacturers, with great vigour.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that there are many of us who think that in the interests of public expenditure it is he who ought to be put on the shelf until—[Interruption.] Could he now say whether—[Interruption.] Will the Government Chief Whip be quiet for a moment? Will the Secretary of State say whether he stands by or now disclaims his estimate of 18th March that the British share of the production losses on 16 aeroplanes would be between £200 million and £225 million? Second, will he say when the rundown of employment starts at Weybridge unless further authorisation for production is given, and third, whether he stands by the Government's statement that British Airways will be reinbursed for the losses which it says it will make on the operation of this aircraft?

Mr. Benn: I disregard the hon. Gentleman's preliminaries. I think that he recognises that the figures published in March were the best figures available to officials in Whitehall. When they were published a number of alternatives were put forward, and—as I believe I have told the House—we were able to improve on the accuracy of these forecasts as a result of the fact that we operated in a system of open government in this respect.
The hon. Gentleman referred to rundown. The rundown on the basis of 16 aircraft begins at different centres at different times because, as he knows, some preliminary work is done in Weybridge and goes to, say, Bristol for finishing. That is the nature of the problem which his hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) raised, which I sought to deal with.
As regards British Airways, that is a matter for the Secretary of State for Trade. I have made it clear that the British Airways' calculations all hinge

upon a forecast of the load factor for Concorde. That factor has often been central in the calculation of possible profitability in the use of new aircraft, and one must not be hynotised by figures when those figures rest upon assumptions. That is something that cannot be clarified completely until one knows the actual load factor. The VC10 is a good parallel.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his decision to continue the most expensive confidence trick in British history will be heard with great regret by those who have any regard for ordinary business common sense or who have any regard for the environment? It is an affront to all who are concerned with the missing houses, hospitals, schools and so on in this country. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that a fair and rational decision now demands immediate cancellation of this lunatic project?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has said with great vigour what a number of people think. Those views were put forward by the Anti-Concorde Project, by Mr. Richard Wiggs in his evidence to the Government. What he says is reflected in the views of others.
I do not take the view, when the finest skills in Britain and France for half a generation have been put into an aircraft which is capable of demonstrating its technical ability, that common sense dictates that it should be cancelled within a month or two of entry into service. But that is a matter of defining what is common sense.
I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman may see that he is probably saying something relevant and important about the way in which Parliament and the public should approach the beginning of new projects. He will find that I am on record as having made equally trenchant observations.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister accept that some of us feel that the trade unions have been manoeuvred into supporting this project because of the potential loss of jobs? Will he assure us that he has in mind some plans for transfer of many of these jobs to socially more useful work when the 16 planes have been completed?

Mr. Benn: I know what my hon. Friend has in mind, but he is doing less than full justice to the view put forward by the trade unions in the evidence that they submitted to me. That is available. I made it publicly available to those who were interested and who got in touch with my Department. The view of the workers involved—if candid discussion takes place with them, as it has done with me over many years—is that they were never asked whether they wished to produce this project. They were told that the only way in which they could earn a living in the aircraft industry was by producing Concorde. There is great resentment on the part of the trade union movement that it does not have a greater say in the determination of the projects in which its members are to be involved. I share that view, and there is a case, as I tried to say earlier, for much greater openness before projects of this kind are entered into.

Mr. Cope: Like the Secretary of State's constituents, mine also will welcome the statement, as he is aware. It seems, however, that he has now admitted that the figures that he gave on 18th March were not as accurate as they were made out to be. In other words, the figures were wrong. Would it not have been better to consult BAC and, indeed, the nationalised French aircraft companies about the figures before causing his constituents and mine four months of the greatest anxiety?

Mr. Benn: I cannot accept that, because the figures I published were inherited from the previous administration. The hon. Gentleman, as he will recall, was the personal assistant to the Minister who had those figures and did not publish them. Of all hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman is unfair to rebuke me for publishing figures that must have been available to his own Minister, and, for all I know, to himself, so that people could have confronted the nature of the problem we all have to face.
Having said that, I am not suggesting that the figures prepared by the civil servants were inaccurate in that sense. They had prepared, as officials always do, the best figures available to them. However, the case for opening up internal documents is that considerations that might not have been reflected in figures in the Government's hands could then be

brought in by those who had other evidence to bring to bear. If I had not published them, British Airways—or certainly the manufacturers—would not have been able to submit their own evidence on what the figures should be.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the matter now. Mr. Benn, the next statement.

SHIPBUILDING (PUBLIC OWNERSHIP)

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for making two statements on the same day. With permission, I want to make a statement on the public ownership of shipbuilding and associated industries.
The Labour Party Election Manifesto stated our intention of taking shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering into public ownership and control.
United Kingdom shipbuilding has had an indifferent record in recent years, with static or falling output despite a growing world demand for ships. In 1955 its merchant ship output of 1·3 million gross registered tons was larger than that of any other country and amounted to 26 per cent. of the world total. By the end of 1973 our industry was sixth in the world, having been overtaken by Japan. Sweden. West Germany, Spain and France; and the 1973 output of 1·06 million gross regisstered tons was only 3·6 per cent. of the world total. Shipbuilding employment, which is mainly in assisted areas, has fallen from some 130,000 in 1955 to 69,000.
Over the past 10 years large sums of Government assistance have been provided to shipbuilding companies. Despite this, it is clear that much of the industry will be unable to compete effectively in the world market unless there are changes in management methods and working practices which will allow the more efficient use of its resources and unless there is substantial further investment and modernisation, the funds for which are unlikely to be available from private sources.
Employment in ship repair has halved over the past 10 years and stood at 26,000 in 1973. The recently published report


on the industry by PA Management Consultants Ltd. criticised the excessive fragmentation of the industry in the major estuaries, and concluded that changes in structure and substantial modernisation were essential so that this industry, which is also an important employer in a number of assisted areas, could become an effective force.
In view of the history of the last 20 years, the Government believe that necessary changes will not come about while the industry is in fragmented private ownership and that public ownership of the major companies, including specialist engine builders, offers the only effective prospect of achieving the objective of enabling British shipbuilding and ship repair not merely to survive but to prosper in the highly competitive markets of the world.
Our detailed proposals for legislation will be set out in a White Paper later this year. Before this, the Government wish to receive and consider the views of all interested parties on matters the legislation will need to cover—for example the best organisational structure for the nationalised industry. The Government would also welcome views on other relevant matters.
I propose to undertake consultations on the basis of a discussion paper which I am sending today to the Shipbuilders and Repairers National Association; the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions; the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom; the National Association of Marine Engine Builders; and the British Marine Equipment. Council. I have placed copies in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House, and I am also sending copies to the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and to the Economic Development Committee for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair. Copies are also available to interested parties on request from the Shipbuilding Policy Division of my Department.
The legislation will provide for fair compensation to be paid for the interests to be taken into public ownership. The Bill will contain provisions on the lines of those contained in the Iron and Steel Act 1967 to guard against the dissipation of property and assets of the companies to be nationalised and their subsidiaries

in the period until vesting day. These provisions may be applied to any transactions entered into after today.

Mr. Heseltine: Only a few minutes ago the whole House made accord with the Secretary of State for Industry when he said that he was to have due regard for public expenditure. It has not taken long for him to change his mind, and no one will be surprised at today's statement.
May I ask him, first, what compensation will be payable for investment in this industry that takes place after today? Secondly, what will be the total estimated cost of the proposals outlined in his statement? Thirdly, may I ask him to confirm that his statement is misleading in that he attacks the efficiency of the industry, when the figures he has given indicate that half as many men today are producing only 20 per cent. less output than they were in 1955?
I further suggest to him that as the State now owns 50 per cent. by output of the shipbuilding and repairing industry, it would be a genuine attempt to see whether nationalisation works better than the private sector by allowing the two to compete to see which is likely to solve the very real problems facing this industry, rather than impose a doctrinal solution when there is not a shred of evidence anywhere in the world that success is likely to attend upon its outcome.

Mr. Benn: I have had occasion to comment to the hon. Gentleman before that he should study the facts more carefully. From 1964–65 to 1974–75—that is, a 10-year span—the loans by Government to this industry have run at £62 million. I published the figures in an Answer yesterday. The grants were £79 million and the shareholdings £14 million, and during that period—indeed, over the 10-year period that I have described—this industry has absolutely failed to invest for the future, to get a rising share of the world market or to provide secure employment for those who work in it.
If the hon. Gentleman's definition of private enterprise is that with a booming world market for ships British industry should congratulate itself on running down in numbers, not increasing its share of the world market and being overtaken by the other five major shipbuilding countries, I simply do not accept it. I


think the hon. Gentleman will have a very difficult job to establish that with public opinion.
Having said that, I would add that this is a consultative document that is being issued today and, as I made clear, the negotiations about compensation will take place at a later stage.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The Secretary of State says that before publishing the White Paper he wishes to receive views on the best organisational structure for this nationalised industry. Will the Secretary of State be good enough to explain where he expects to locate this fund of knowledge on how to organise a nationalised industry successfully, and in particular where he is looking for advice on how to organise a manufacturing industry on a nationalised basis which has to compete in a highly competitive international market?

Mr. Benn: All I can say is that by any criteria which the hon. Gentleman likes to mention, this industry has not been very successful over the years. Where is the skill and ability? It is in the industry itself. I have the gravest doubts about the present arrangement under which the private sector control continues, the Government subsidise it and every year or two hire numbers of consultants to abuse the industry for its failures. We should have some institutional arrangements under which the people who work in the industry, management and men, for the first time have the opportunity of developing their own industry free from the failures of the private enterprise framework that surrounds them.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will give deep satisfaction on this side of the House and to the vast majority of the British people? Would he agree with me that the very people who are condemning him for intelligent use of public money, in which he has engaged during the recent period, have accepted during their tenure of office £3,000 million subvention of public money to shore up their much-vaunted, yet faltering, private enterprise system?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I have absolutely no doubt whatever that this will be welcomed by those working in the industry

because they have suffered more than any other group of people from the framework in which they were expected to earn their living. They have seen the essential investment denied them. They have seen other shipbuilding countries get ahead of them, and they have been put in the humiliating position—with all their skill and craft, some of it going back many generations—of being presented to the public as a failure. What has failed has not been the skill of the workers or the management but the framework in which they have had to work.

Mr. Trotter: May I remind the Minister that some 80 per cent. of the public funds have gone into the publicly-owned yards and that the private yards, including Swan Hunter's on Tyneside, are booming with the largest order books which they have had in 10 years? May I repeat the question: what is the arithmetic of this crazy and costly exercise? How much will it cost the taxpayer to take over booming and successful private yards, and what will be the cost of the losses in the future when the dead hand of nationalisation has reduced them to the same level as those which are at present publicly owned?

Mr. Benn: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing could have been more costly or wasteful than the framework within which the taxpayer has been financing the shipbuilding industry up to now. I published the figures in answer to the hon. Gentleman's own Question yesterday I have a copy of the Answer before me. He will see the size of the subventions that have been made. Nor would it be true to say that any shipbuilder—even of the kind to whom he refers with a special local constituency interest—has not benefited from Government assistance of some kind or another, though it is also true—and quite right that it should be true—that in considering their attitude towards less successful shipbuilding industries, the previous Government as well as this Government and the Government of which I was a member took account of regional implications in their support.
When the previous Conservative Government finally acceded to the demand of the Clydeside workers, that they should have the right to work, they contributed many millions of pounds because it was not only shipbuilding but employment


considerations that were in mind. But that is a bad basis for developing investment and a future in an industry that is meeting a rapidly growing world demand for ships.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some thousands of my constituents working in the shipbuilding and ship repair industries will welcome very strongly the statement that he has made? Is he also aware that they have already come together to prepare some preliminary statements for him—of which I believe he already has a copy—illustrating some of the priorities which they believe need attention in the urgent requirement for further investment, especially in the repair industry?

Mr. Benn: I know that what my hon. Friend says is right because I had the opportunity of going there to meet both the management of the Court Line Group—which we acquired recently—and the stewards and workers in that industry. In the course of a long discussion I had with them they made it clear that in the new environment of public ownership, the scope for co-operation exists between management and men—for the men regard their own management very highly—and the possibility of the development of a forward-looking corporate strategy. If the Opposition think that there are any votes in fighting nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry, they have made the biggest mistake of their lives.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Minister spoke in disparaging terms of what he calls "fragmentation" on the management side. Has he any plans in his new structure for dealing with fragmentation on the union side? Twenty-one unions to build a ship! He spoke of how Japan had overtaken us. The Japanese have two shipbuilding unions. Has the Minister got that in mind for increasing efficiency?

Mr. Benn: Not for the first time, the hon. Member has revealed his misunderstanding of the nature of trade unions, which is that they are voluntary organisations of workers banding themselves together to defend and promote the interests of their members. In the past 20 years none of the shipbuilding unions has received any Government money.

Therefore, there is no parallel between unions and managements.
All I would say is that one of the most encouraging things about the discussions—and I have been involved in them, with responsibilities for shipbuilding going back to 1966—is that the forward-looking plans for investment, for exports and for the new strategy of the industry have come from trade unionists working in the shipbuilding industry. If we can harness their energy to the industry's future, it will be a great future.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this statement today.

EEC (ASSOCIATED AND ASSOCIABLE STATES)

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for burdening the House with yet another statement, but it would not have been possible to make this one earlier than today.
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the ministerial conference in Kingston, Jamaica, of the EEC and the 19 present associates and 25 new associables of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific.
The negotiations were concerned with the Community offer, set out in Protocol 22 of the Brussels Treaty of Accession, to sign a new Convention of Association. The present Yaounde Convention is due to expire on 31st January. The conference covered a number of subjects. A major concern to us was the need to safeguard the interests of the new Commonwealth associables, and I had to have very serious regard to the dependence of a number of them on their exports of primary products, particularly sugar. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is due to expire on 31st December next.
In the event, the President of the EEC, M. Sauvagnargues, was able in his second statement to the conference to make quite clear that the British Government have a firm commitment to the import of 1.4 million tons of sugar into the Community. On the other hand, he made clear that the other members of the EEC cannot


accept this commitment until the Community sugar régime has been settled.
It was agreed that the Commission of the EEC will seek the views of the ACP countries—the associates and associables—on this question. At the end of the conference, by agreement, Britain issued a unilateral declaration on the subject of our total commitment on this issue. I am placing the relevant documents in the Library.
In the light of the President's statement, the conference was able to proceed to discussion on a number of issues of great importance to the 44—the associates and the associables—and to make the following progress.
It recognised the importance of industrial co-operation. This will be the subject of a separate chapter in the convention.
It exchanged views on the size of the European Development Fund, and on this point discussions are to continue.
It agreed to proceed with further work on access for agricultural products, on non-tariff barriers and on rules of origin. The ACP countries attach considerable importance to these points.
In my view, the most important agreement reached concerned the establishment of a scheme to stabilise export earnings. The exports of developing countries associated with, or planning to be associated with, the Community have been subject to substantial fluctuation of price and quantity, particularly the exports of primary products. It is, of course, extremely difficult for developing countries to formulate or implement development plans when they are deeply uncertain about the future level of their export earnings. The Commission will now immediately begin talks with the relevant producer countries.
The conference gave the opportunity for a full and frank dialogue between the countries of the EEC and the ACP. The Prime Minister of Jamaica, Mr. Michael Manley, and the Foreign Minister of Jamaica, Mr. P. J. Patterson, who was the chairman of the conference, greatly influenced its success. The negotiations will, of course, continue in the coming months.

Mr. Wood: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement. In relation to

sugar, I am reassured to some extent by what she said about the Government's total commitment. However, is she confident that this extremely difficult question can be settled by the end of this year?
Second, will the right hon. Lady put a little flesh on the bare bones of her very important paragraphs about the European Development Fund, and about the scheme to stabilise export earnings? She will agree that, in the present shortage of time, her statement did not impart a wealth of information on these matters, and they are important to us.
Lastly, is the unity of all the associates and associables, which was so evident at meetings last year, still maintained? If so, does the right hon. Lady agree that this was a remarkable achievement in view of the uncertainty of the Government's attitude to Europe at the present time?

Mrs. Hart: I am glad to answer the right hon. Gentleman's three questions. First, export earnings. The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, understand that lying behind my statement, and, indeed, lying behind the published documents arising from the conference, there was a great deal of dialogue and discussion which in the normal way cannot be made fully available publicly. The important fact in respect of export earnings was that there was an agreement in principle on both sides and, in particular, an agreement in principle by the EEC countries to respond to this point, which was regarded as extremely important by the ACP countries. Further work is to be done on that, and I do not think that there is much that I can add to the statements that are being placed in the Library.
Next, the question of the unity of the 44 countries. There was a strong feeling of unity among them. I cannot say, because of the sugar question, that there was equal unity on our side; that is to say, the EEC side. This relates to the right hon. Gentleman's first question about whether I am confident that the negotiations can be completed by the end of the year. I must tell him of the realisation that has come our way since we began our renegotiations that the previous Government's apparently firm commitment that the Community would respect the 1·4 million tons British commitment on sugar is not what was understood.


There is still an extremely large gap between the views of the other members of the Community and ourselves which is a great stumbling block to making progress as fast as we should hope. However, I still hope that it will be possible to reach agreement by the end of the year, but this is the major problem that stands in the way.

Mr. Thorpe: Will the right hon. Lady agree that the widest possible access to the markets of the Community and to its development fund is crucial to the Third World? Will she agree also that, although problems remain, these talks represent an advance towards the liberalisation of trade, and that as a member of the Community with Commonwealth links we have a great contribution to make to ensure that the Community is outward-looking, is low-tariffed and has a generous aid programme?
Finally, will the right hon. Lady agree that if all those countries which can do so have either an Arusha-type or a Yaounde-type association, we could be looking forward to the possibility of a free trading area of 90 countries?

Mrs. Hart: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Britain has a great responsibility in these matters. Our responsibility is to ensure that the consequence of association with the Community does not reduce the advantages that the Commonwealth countries have enjoyed in their association with us. This is the essence of the matter. That means that we are bound—indeed, I played my part, I think, in Kingston—to try to ensure that the Community takes as outward-looking a view as possible on the needs that were being expressed by the Commonwealth associables; and that, of course, raises the question of sugar.
On the question of aid—I apologise to the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) for not answering this part of his question, but perhaps I can do so now—and the size of the European Development Fund, there is clearly a gap between the thinking of the 44 and the thinking of the Nine. I have to bear in mind the related aspects of our renegotiation on the question of aid; that is to say, that the ultimate size of the European Development Fund within the Community must be related to the extent to which the Community agrees that its

aid policy should be broadly on a 50–50 balance as between associates and non-associates. This is undoubtedly a problem that will have to be resolved in the course of the next two or three months.

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations and, I hope, the congratulations of all of us on this side for her firm stand on the sugar issue? Is not the attitude of the eight other members of the Common Market on this a cynical repudiation of what were so-called guarantees given when we went into the Common Market, that the EEC countries would pay serious attention to the interests of the sugar-producing countries?
May we be assured that the other members of the Common Market are not still thinking in terms of the old Yauondè neo-colonial arrangements, under which the other countries are simply suppliers of raw materials to a vast industrial European grouping? There is no evidence, from what I have heard, that they are thinking basically any differently from the old arrangement.

Mrs. Hart: I thank my hon. Friend. One of the interesting experiences at Kingston was the clearer understanding which emerged on the part of the countries of the Nine—I do not include Britain, but the other countries of the Nine—of the insistence of the 44 that neocolonialism would no longer do. It was an extremely interesting experience. I mentioned the full and frank dialogue. The nature of this dialogue was the 44 saying "We are not interested in neocolonialism; we are interested in real steps forward being made on practical issues of concern to us"—which will mean that the Community has to give to meet those needs. This, I think, was the most valuable aspect of the conference.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will the Secretary of State accept that we welcome her statement, particularly in so far as it relates to the stability of export earnings, and will she further accept that one of the things which we are all anxious to see is something that Britain could do, perhaps immediately under its own steam, for the liberalisation of trade? Many of us feel that the "trade not aid" approach is one which we should usefully follow now, particularly for those countries most


affected by the oil crisis; namely, India. Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Mrs. Hart: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman's concern for India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. This raises a whole number of questions on another issue on which I have been very much involved during the past few weeks. I do not think that I can go into that today, although I shall gladly write to the hon. Gentleman if he would wish me to do so.
On the liberalisation of trade, we have to recognise that it is not, within the framework of the Community, open to us to take initiatives that we might otherwise have taken. In the present state of play, we might have to consider this matter in the context of the Community. Our own concern is for maximum liberalisation. We should like to persuade the Community to take the same approach as we should have taken unilaterally. This is the essence of the matter.

Mr. Spearing: Has my right hon. Friend seen page 3 of last Sunday's Sunday Times, which showed—erroneously apparently—that agreement had been reached by the EEC on 1·4 million tons? Might that not have been possible if the Leader of the Liberal Party and his hon. Friends had voted for the then Opposition's amendment to the European Communities Bill, which would have safeguarded the position, instead of being taken in by the blandishments of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)? Now the bankable assurances have bounced.
Has my right hon. Friend seen the one-page advertisements by "Mr. Cube"—from my constituency—apologising for interruptions in supplies which, he says, are beyond his control? Does she agree that the Commonwealth countries are no longer prepared to supply the usual amounts of sugar, due to the termination of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement at the end of this year, that that termination has come about through our entry into the EEC, and that otherwise our supplies at the moment would be assured?

Mrs. Hart: I have seen the report in the Sunday Times. It was absolutely wrong, and I cannot think where that impression came from. Far from there being agreement on the 1·4 million tons, the

situation was that we established our different views on this.
I entirely agree on the second point. Our great problem now is that, whereas there had been an assumption that the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham had got the bankable assurances that he talked so much about, in fact that proved to be so far from the case that we are really still at square one on sugar. That is the essence of the matter.
As I said in my statement, the Commission will now explore the question of supplies and price with all the sugar-producing developing countries of the ACP. My firm impression is that the answer the Commission is likely to get is that those countries would certainly like to commit themselves to the supply of 1·4 million tons, which, of course, has a great bearing on the present sugar situation.

Mr. Jopling: I welcome the right hon. Lady's determination to import 1·4 million tons of sugar from the Commonwealth, but will she give an assessment of the shortfall in the supplies of sugar which we have experienced and may experience in the future, particularly from the Caribbean region? Is she aware that there is grave concern that this shortfall is leading to shortages in the shops here?
Is the right hon. Lady aware also that there is serious danger that, on top of that shortfall, we may well see in the course of next year serious shortages of supplies of home-grown sugar? Will she explain to the Minister of Agriculture that, in view of the problems of supply from the Caribbean region, the urgent need is for him to take action quickly to make sure that supplies of home-grown sugar do not decline during next year?

Mrs. Hart: While I can hardly speak for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, I should have thought it patently obvious that the present level of sugar production, whatever it may be, is a consequence of decisions made before we came to power. We do not exactly grow a sugar crop in five months. Of course, one is deeply concerned about continuing supplies of sugar for Britain and Europe. It is surely more relevant, therefore, that we should seek to maximise imports from the Commonwealth countries, and the more surprising that the


previous Government had not made certain within the Community context, that that would be so.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The House will realise that we have a long way to go and that considerable time has been consumed.

Orders of the Day — CARIBBEAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

Motion made, and Question put forth-with, pursuant to the Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments),
That the Caribbean Development Bank (Additional Contributions) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th July, be approved.—[Mrs. Hart.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

Orders of the Day — CYPRUS

12.59 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I should like to start by joining in the congratulations offered to the Foreign Secretary on the success of his negotiations in Geneva. I should also like to thank him warmly for coming so promptly to the House to report what has been going on. But peace, as the Foreign Secretary himself said, must still be on a knife edge, and I am therefore very grateful for a chance to raise this subject.
In the past couple of weeks, the country and the House have been short of news about the situation in Cyprus and about the background situation in the Eastern Mediterranean as a whole. I hope that this can be a constructive debate and that we shall be able to avoid the kind of pecking and scratching across the Floor that is all too frequently seen here.
Can the Foreign Secretary let us know any more about the safety of the remaining United Kingdom citizens in Cyprus? I understand that there are a number of tourists and retired and business people there who are probably not yet anxious to return to the United Kingdom and some who may be anxious, but who have not yet had the chance to come back.
Several of my constituents have made inquiries about families on holiday and so on in Cyprus and they are short of news because the normal channels of communication do not seem to be available. I wonder whether the Foreign


Secretary could say anything about a suggestion, which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence agreed to take up yesterday, that Service communications facilities might be made available so that those inquiries could be pursued. I am thinking of perhaps a telephone number in London which people who are still worried could ring, and some attempt could be made by further communication to help them.
Thirdly, has the staff of the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Nicosia been reinforced? His office must be an extremely busy place at the moment and I think that the House would like to know that he has had all the reinforcements and help that he needs. In particular, is he in close contact with the operational headquarters of Air Marshall Aiken at Akrotiri?
Lastly, and this may be difficult, can the Foreign Secretary at this stage say anything about the arrangements contemplated by the Government of Cyprus regarding British property? A great many people have invested their savings in homes and so on in Cyprus and there must be a great deal of anxiety on that score.
As for the security situation in the island, we still see in the Press a lot about local fighting between Greeks and Turks, and the House must face the fact that there are tens of thousands of pretty excitable people with guns in their hands running around the island in what had been a hotch-potch of communities. Many of them feel that they have old scores to settle. I have received in private letters accounts of various massacres and atrocities, which I shall send to the Foreign Secretary. I do not want to make them public in this debate for fear of doing more harm than good and inflaming a situation which is already difficult enough.
I come to the wider issues affecting British interests, not only in the island of Cyprus itself but in the eastern Mediterranean as a whole. First, I feel that it is a very frail peace existing between two or our NATO allies, and this must be recognised. Secondly, there must be a possibility of action or engagement by accident or mistaken identity. The fleets of the Soviet Union, the United States, the Royal Navy, Turkey and, I believe,

Greece, are operating cheek by jowl in the waters around Cyprus and, similarly, so are aircraft in the air space. There was a report in the Press of a case of mistaken identity causing Turkish aircraft to sink one of their own ships.
That sort of accident is always a possibility in a situation like this. Could the Foreign Secretary say whether there is an overall operational clearing house so that nations can say where their forces are from moment to moment, an arrangement that could be monitored by one central authority? I wonder whether Britain, as one of the guarantors, not as a nation engaged in the fighting, should be in a position to arrange such a service. It seems to me that the facilities for it are available in the sovereign base area.
The third subject about which I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary is his opinion of Russian involvement. In recent years we have seen enormous Soviet naval increases built up in the eastern Mediterranean and we know that there is a strong Communist Party in Cyprus. I have read in the Press that it is the strongest political party. There was a story in the Press, which was not followed up, about a Soviet observer inviting himself to Geneva, and I think that the House would be grateful to have some word from the Foreign Secretary about his estimate of the part being played by Russia in this intensely complicated situation.
As regards the future, whatever constitution emerges for the island of Cyprus itself, Britain will still have important interests in the area—trading interests, strategic interests and the defence of our shipping, which will become more important when the Suez Canal is shortly reopened, as we hope it will be. Do the Government recognise the continuing interest that we shall have in the area? If so, will they declare now their intentions about the future of the British sovereign bases? If they could do so, that would remove at least one of the many uncertainties affecting the situation, and it would help to solidify the efforts to achieve a more durable peace in the area as a whole.
I put it to the House that the bases are needed for surveillance—particularly of the trade routes—for effective implementation of our rôle as a guarantor and for the maintenance of the facilities of the


United Nations peace-keeping force. I believe that it is correct to say that the United Nations force could not have done its work in recent years—and certainly not during this emergency—unless it had had the administrative backing and the supplies that have been passed through the United Kingdom bases. Let us not forget that these bases are an essential part of our contribution to the CENTO alliance, an alliance that is sometimes slightly forgotten.
Finally, there is the rôle played by our Armed Forces in recent days. I believe that, apart from the Foreign Secretary himself and a few diplomats and civilians, our Armed Forces have borne the whole brunt of the emergency. The successful protection of so many British lives is entirely due to them. They have also made a great contribution to the success of the United Nations forces under General Chand.
While the rest of us go on holiday, Mr. Deputy Speaker, British soldiers, sailors and airmen remain on the job in conditions of very great danger, difficulty and discomfort in the intense summer heat. It is impossible to pay sufficient tribute to the work of all three Services and to their enterprise and efficiency in unforeseen circumstances. They seem, once again, somehow to have snatched our chestnuts out of the fire for us.
I should like to see more detailed mention of the names of the ships and helicopter squadrons that carried out the dramatic rescues from the beaches and of the Army battalions, the Royal Air Force squadrons and the Royal Marine Commandos. These men, who are working out there for us and for peace, are only human and they like to be in the news. I think that the Ministry of Defence public relations department could have done more than it has done on their behalf in this respect.
If the Foreign Secretary agrees with what I am saying about the work of the Armed Forces, I put it to him that the best news that these men could receive would be to hear that the Government have paid heed to the real lesson of the Cyprus affair. That lesson is, first, that a British presence is still needed in the eastern Mediterranean and, in my submission, that the sovereign bases are essential to it; secondly, that our forces

are already stretched to the utmost in doing this type of peace-keeping work without this additional work on top; and, thirdly, that any talk about cutting the forces still further is, in terms of reality, political nonsense, because they are already cut to the bone.
Service men are dedicated professionals. We have seen this again in the past week or two, if we did not know it already. Unlike so many people, they are not agitating about their pay or conditions. They do their jobs in the belief that they are valuable and worth while. I believe that the least that the Government can do is to recognise that and to say that the forces will have a future and that they will continue to get the men, weapons and equipment that they need.
The Foreign Secretary said in his statement that he had been proud of Britain. I agree, and I am sure that the whole House agrees, but we could not be proud of Britain—and nor, I think, could he—unless we had sufficient forces to protect our interests wherever they may be threatened.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the next hon. Member, I should mention that, owing to the number of statements this morning, the timings of debates have been cut down to what amounts to just under one hour for the first and to 25 minutes each for those that follow it.

1.10 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: I heed your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall be brief. I do not intend to follow the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), mainly because of the need to make a short speech.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend. I hope that he will convey the thanks of the whole House to everybody and particularly those on the ground in Cyprus who laboured so hard, and who have done such a good job in getting back home the tourists and the other people who flocked into the bases. It goes without saying, I think, that we all feel that way.
I should like to voice one minor criticism about the arrangements for getting news through. There must be many Members who have been approached by constituents who have relations there, perhaps a son or daughter who is married to a Turkish or Greek Cypriot. So far, these people have had no information from Cyprus. We recognise the difficulties of our forces who were overloaded by all the people flocking into the base, with perhaps fighting going on and people being cut off in remote villages. I am aware of the emergency service set up in the Foreign Office, and I am sure that it is doing what it can to help, but it should be realised that there are other means of communication with the sovereign bases. The Meteorological Office, for instance, has extensive communications facilities which if used would allow more information to come out of the island.
I am unhappy about the House going into recess. I have a certain number of cases—and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen may have more—of people who are still desperately waiting for news and who are concerned about the situation. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reassure us. If any other cases come to our knowledge, shall we be able to get in touch with the Foreign Office and leave with it the names and addresses of the people who are desperately and anxiously awaiting news? May we have an assurance that Members will be assisted in looking after their constituents' real interests?
I emphasise that, because I have spoken to these people. It is distressing for someone to have a son or daughter or mother in Cyprus and find, as the days go by and people arrive by plane, that there is no news of where his nearest and dearest are. As we get over the chaos, and as, we hope, the peace negotiations continue, we trust that we shall speedily be in a position to have a communications system with the Greeks, the Turks and the United Nations so that we may send our representatives to these villages to find out what has happened. All that is required is a simple message to say that they are in good heart, that they are wall and that they have survived. That is the least we can expect in this situation.
I hope my right hon. Friend does not think that we are being too critical. I

am aware—as I am sure others are—that when something like this blows up the essential first tasks have to be done first. But we should now be able to see our way ahead to a situation in which we can go to the Foreign Office on behalf of our constituents and say that their friends and relations are at certain addresses and ask whether it is possible to find out how they are.
I hope that as the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester said we shall utilise the communications facilities that can be made available and that all the news will be made available. I hope that what I have said will not be taken in a spirit of undue criticism. I am aware of the difficulties, but I hope that we can make progress in this way. We can then sit back on our laurels and say that we have done a good job for the people whom we seek to help in this unhappy situation.

1.14 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I do not venture into the fields of defence and strategy on which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) has spoken with the eminent authority that he has in these matters, but I join with him in his tribute to the Foreign Secretary.
On Monday I referred to the necessity of measures to safeguard British lives and interests in Cyprus, and particularly in the Kyrenia area. I shall not repeat what I said then, except to emphasise the urgency and importance of the matter, and to express the hope that for British citizens in Cyprus the worst may now be over, or that it soon will be. Like the rest of the House, I heard with great distress the news of the four further casualties in Cyprus.
I join, too, in paying tribute to the work of the High Commissioner, Mr. Stephen Olver, and his staff, in these difficult circumstances, as well as to our troops in Cyprus.
I turn to the wider aspects of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman very properly stressed the temporary nature of the achievement to date, gratifying though it is, and the necessity to press on to a lasting solution. The Geneva Declaration, in particular paragraph 5, refers to those constitutional aspects. I warmly welcome


the early association of the indigenous Cypriot elements with the talks, because naturally their consent is necessary for any lasting and stable solution. It will not be easy to evolve a viable and acceptable constitutional pattern in Cyprus, as is evidenced by the snail's progress of the inter-communal talks over the past few years.
It is, however, vitally necessary that we should achieve success if we are to avoid the fear of a repetition of recent events. Paragraph 5 of the Geneva Declaration notes the existence in practice in Cyprus of two autonomous administrations, the Greek Cypriot community and the Turkish Cypriot community. That, of course, is a fact.
As I see it, there are three possibilities for the future. The first would be to seek to continue on the lines of the two autonomous communities. Logically that would involve the partition of Cyprus, and I do not consider that the pattern of population in Cyprus lends itself to partition. Nearly all the towns have a mixed population, although it is fair to say that the Turks tend to reside in their own separate quarters. There are still some mixed villages, though unfortunately not as many as there were a few years ago. In any case, the Greek and Turkish villages are sometimes close and do not follow an easily divisible geographic pattern Therefore, it follows that any partition, whether de jure or even de facto, would probably necessitate compulsory movements of population and other elements of human hardship.
The second possibility is to revert to the precise prescribed machinery of the 1960 Constitution. That has obvious attractions, but the fact that it has not worked so far in practice may be an indication of the practical difficulties of its full restoration.
The third possible course is to use the spirit of the 1960 Constitution as a base, and to evolve by good will and agreement between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot elements such adaptation and improvements as are necessary to meet the practical requirements of the situation. The third suggestion seems to me to be the most hopeful avenue of approach. I believe that in Mr. Glafkos Clerides and Mr. Rauf Denktash we have men of the requisite ability and good will to make

progress on those lines. They are, too, men who will appreciate the inherent difficulties of the situation and the necessity of a good deal of give and take in the matter.
I see one other hopeful sign in this dark scene. Paradoxically that is in the economic context. I say "paradoxically" because naturally the economy of Cyprus has necessarily received a shattering blow from recent events. But economic considerations show clearly that Cypriots must take a practical view and that will be acceptable to the outside world. The average man, be he Cypriot or otherwise, wants economic stability and growth, but in Cyprus in particular, this prospect depends wholly on a peaceful and sensible solution of constitutional problems.
About one-third of the island's economy in terms of earnings is tourism; one-third is the export of wine and citrus fruits. Tourism, of course, depends wholly on the outside world. The export of wine and fruit depends, only fractionally to a lesser degree—formerly on Commonwealth preference—today on obtaining the right arrangements with the EEC. That being so, the economic conditions must push Cypriots of whatever extraction to a sensible and agreed solution.
I hope that economic realities will pervail. I believe that the terrible and tragic experiences of the last two weeks will help—indeed, force—all concerned to recognise that the economic salvation of Cyprus and all its citizens depends on a practical and sensible approach.
I hope, therefore, that the lessons of the past are now learnt and that a new start can be made in binding up the wounds of this lovely but unhappy land.

1.21 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I shall be very brief, for I wish to make only one or two observations in this debate.
The events of the last few weeks—the intervention under the treaty of guarantee by Turkey in Cyprus and the fighting that has taken place—have tended to cloud the real issue and what started off this tragic event in Cyprus. That intervention was with the full consent of the then Government, the military colonels' junta in Greece, who incited and


supported the officers of the Cypriot National Guard to overthrow the legal Government of the Republic of Cyprus. It would be wrong if, in the events that have followed, we did not recognise that the guilty parties in this current tragedy are those who initiated the overthrow of the legal Government of the Republic.
I want to join with the whole House—indeed, with the rest of the country—in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the part that he has played on behalf of the British nation in bringing about at least an interim agreement that has established a ceasefire. It would also be right in this short debate to record my appreciation of the restraint that has been shown by the Turkish Government and, indeed, by the new régime in Greece itself. In my view, they have done all they can, within the constraints of the very strong public opinion that must be flowing in their respective countries, to de-escalate the hard fighting that was taking place.
As to the future, obviously, my right hon. Friend and all others in the world interested in restoring peace and democracy to Cyprus must keep the negotiations continuing until we find a solution to this tragedy of the split population of Cyprus. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) has referred to Mr. Denktash and Mr. Clerides. In those two Greek and Turkish citizens of Cyprus we have people who understand the communal problems of the Republic of Cyprus and can play an immense part.
I only wish that I could say the same for Mr. Makarios. In my view, it would be wrong in the immediate future for Mr. Makarios to be involved too closely in the initial negotiations that must now continue. There may well be a future for Mr. Makarios back in Cyprus, but he, too, has a responsibility for the tragedy.
It must be remembered that under his presidency the communities in Cyprus were not brought together in the way that they could have been united and integrated if the Government of the Republic had shown the right lead. So, while I have every sympathy for a democratically-elected president who is overthrown as a result of a military intervention, in the

circumstances that have flowed from that and with the emergence of Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash as the prime spokesmen of the two communities, I hope that Mr. Makarios will agree that he could play a low profile rôle, at least for the immediate future.
A matter of continuing debate, particularly on my side of the House, is the future rôle of the British Armed Forces. We ought to seize this opportunity of placing on record that there must be many thousands of citizens in Cyprus who today are thanking God that there were sovereign area bases in which they could and did, take refuge from the murder and havoc that were raping the Republic of Cyprus.
It is my hope that, with the experience we have had of the importance of a British sovereign base in Cyprus and a strong British contingent in the United Nations peacekeeping forces in Cyprus and elsewhere, the demands for Draconian defence cuts will at least be muted by the realisation that, if it were not for the presence of United Kingdom Armed Forces, the blood, terror and death would have been far greater than it was.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) touched on the subject of United Kingdom tourists who are still in the eastern Mediterranean area. I have received representations from people whose children are on holiday in Crete, for instance, and from tourists in Turkey and Greece. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to reassure the parents and families of these holiday makers to the effect that the civil airports in Crete, Greece and Turkey are open for British tour operators to go in and out with their tourists. I hope also that he will be able to say whether he is satisfied that the British tour operators with holiday makers in these areas are discharging their undertakings and responsibilities in seeing that the tourists are properly housed and fed during any delays that may take place.
I emphasise the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) and my hon. Friend that greater publicity should be given to a central point through which United Kingdom citizens could make inquiries about friends and relatives in


Cyprus and the other areas where communications are rather delayed at the moment.
I again congratulate my right hon. Friend. He has served Britain and the world immensely in the past few days in the part that he has played in bringing peace and tranquility and in the long term, we hope, a firmer settlement.

1.28 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I join the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) in congratulating the Foreign Secretary on the stamina and skill that he has shown in the last few days.
I also join the hon. Member in hoping that when the conference reconvenes, we shall not insist too strongly on the presence of President Makarios. I remember well that 10 or 11 years ago President Makarios was instrumental in breaking down the power-sharing constitution in Cyprus and that he did a great deal, alas, to undermine the constitutional rights of the Turkish community. Since then, of course, he has won wide admiration for the adroit way in which he has survived on the high wire of Cypriot politics. But, of course, high wire acts lose some of their effectiveness if the star falls on his head in the ring. I hope that we shall not insist on the presence of President Makarios.
I am sure that we would all agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) that the situation in Cyprus would have been much worse in the last few days, had it not been for the presence of the sovereign base areas and the British troops. They have done a magnificent job, for which we should give them full credit.
I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary can give an estimate of the cost to the Treasury of the relief work for the refugees and whether he would say a word or so about what further support will be given the next few weeks for those who have been forced to leave their homes. In particular one thinks of the families of British Service men who have had to leave their homes and go into sovereign base areas. Presumably they have to be flown back to this country, and I hope that adequate care will be taken of them.
But while there is universal praise for the rôle of the British forces, I am sure the Foreign Secretary will be aware that there has been anxiety in this country, and in the Middle East, about the rôle of the United Nations force as a whole. When serious fighting broke out in Cyprus it seemed that the United Nations force there was incapable of taking effective action. I wonder what fresh orders have been given to the United Nations force in Cyprus to ensure that, if there are infractions of the cease-fire, they will be able to deal effectively with them. Have they the authority to use force if there is a break in the cease-fire and have they the full authority of the Turkish and Greek Governments to go everywhere they need on the island?
I also hope that the Foreign Secretary can say something about the future of the sovereign base areas. He will know that some doubt has been thrown on their continued existence by the defence review I am sure we all join the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford in hoping that the sovereign base areas will remain, because our forces in Cyprus are an element of stability in a desperately unstable part of the world.

1.33 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: At the risk of boring my right hon Friend, I congratulate him on his arduous endeavours of the past few hours. The result gives a lie to those who say that Britain has very little influence in conflicts of this kind.
Cyprus is part of the Commonwealth, and one cannot escape the messages of history. She is struggling to assert her sovereign independence, and I found it strange that, in my right hon. Friend's initial statement and until recently in the debate, President Makarios was not mentioned very much from the Government side of the House. I understand that he is currently in London. I should like to know whether, when my right hon. Friend has caught his breath, he intends to have talks with President Makarios, who is an expert on the situation and whose opinion and advice would be sought by the British people as a whole. I should also like to know whether President Makarios, as the British Government have been at pains to describe him all the way through,


will be a party to the talks with which my right hon. Friend will be involved in the not-too-distant future.
As my right hon. Friend will be denuded of sound advice from our side of the House during the talks and in the coming weeks, it is as well to spell out now some of the fears and trepidations of the Labour Party and the Labour movement on the vexed Cypriot question.
The Labour Party Executive accepted a resolution calling for the return of President Makarios to Cyprus because it was accepted that what he had to say in answer to that call would lead to the restitution of the sovereignty of Cyprus. I have met Mr. Clerides, who is a most able man, and I have met some of the Turkish leaders. I made one visit to Cyprus in 1970, but not for the purpose of making a painstaking political study of the area. Because Cyprus is part of the Commonwealth, and because there are many immigrants of Greek origin—not so many of Turkish origin—from Cyprus in this country, perhaps we have become more acquainted with the problems of that island than we otherwise would be.
There is no doubt that many of the Turkish people of Cypriot origin who have settled in this country have respect for President Makarios, as have those people of Greek origin who demonstrated their anxieties in Hyde Park last Sunday, when the call for his return had an instant response. It was the one thing that "rang the bell" in the context of the anxieties that are felt about Cyprus.
The background events—this was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford—that led to the coup that resulted in the deposition of President Makarios, the setting up of a junta for a brief period, and the strange events involved with it, have already been partly uncovered by researches in papers such as The Sunday Times.
I hope my right hon. Friend has in mind that many of us are mindful of the influences exerted by the Greek millionaires. There is an interlocking of the situation in Greece and Cyprus. Those who control events in Greece endeavour to do so by one régime or another, and they have a link with the United States

in the international field. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that article in The Sunday Times because one of the millionaries was a rich backer of Mr. Nixon's Presidential campaign.
The Labour Party and the Labour movement do not want to see any activity on the part of our Foreign Secretary which tends to buttress this state of affairs. We want to be seen to be ranged on the side of the peoples of both Cyprus and Greece in their anguished moments and in their endeavours to assert their democratic rights to advance to a Socialist society if they so desire.

1.38 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: I join with others in welcoming the cessation of hostilities. I should like, first, to pay the warmest possible tribute to the Secretary of State for his determined, healing and creative part in reaching the agreement. I welcome also the action of the Greek and Turkish Governments. Their statesmanship at the conference, has been outstanding. The new Greek Government were in a particularly difficult position just having come into power. Then I should like to join others in a warm tribute to our Armed Services and to our High Commissioner. It has been a multilateral effort that has produced a ceasefire.
The agreement signed yesterday will, I hope, lead to a longer-term settlement and allow the people of Cyprus to live alongside each other with much less fear of communal clashes. But this, as the Secretary of State said, is only a beginning. I wish him success in the resumed negotiations on 8th August and, later, when the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities are brought in. He will then find there two of my old friends, Glafkos Clerides and Rauf Denktash, both clear-sighted and determined leaders who care for Cyprus as a whole as well as for their own communities.
I was involved in the administration of Cyprus for five years, from 1955 to 1960, and I should like to make only a few points at this early stage. The ceasefire agreement points to separate rule in the new Turkish and Greek sectors within an independent and unitary Cyprus republic. This could—and I pray it will—lead to a more stable political future. It is difficult, at this stage, to see far ahead.


but, in my view, an arrangement on these lines offers better prospects than the alternative of outright partition, which would involve much suffering through major movements of population.
But one point is already clear. The members of the Turkish Cypriot community could not thrive on the land now occupied by Turkish troops. It contains very little of the good farming land. The detailed settlement that has yet to be worked out will, as I see it, leave Turks in the Greek sector free to live, farm and trade there, and Greeks in the new Turkish sector free to do the same.
But such an arrangement will call for great tolerance and care by the authorities in each area for the other communities under their administration. We have seen in Ulster, which is a different case, how hard it is to achieve this tolerance. But we must await further details.
As to the future rôle of the United Nations forces, which have already achieved so much in Cyprus, it is clear that they will be required for many years to come to ensure that border incidents between the two sectors are kept to a minimum and to help people to adjust to the new situation after great suffering on both sides.
In the first settlement of 1960, the constitutional arrangements for a republic were based on the Zurich Agreement between Greece and Turkey, while Britain retained two sovereign base areas. These sovereign base areas have been of great value to Western defence, as has been recognised by all our Western allies. They have been of value also to our Armed Services for training purposes and for supporting the United Nations forces, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) made clear in his opening speech—and I congratulate him on choosing this subject for his Adjournment debate.
There have also been two side benefits of the sovereign base area. First, in the emergency they have helped to calm the situation and to reduce the threat of war between Greece and Turkey. They have greatly reduced human suffering and have provided a refuge for British residents, for isolated Greek and Turkish groups under threat of massacre, and for the thousands of tourists from all nations scattered all

over the island. They have also been of great benefit to the economy of Cyprus. The wages paid out in the sovereign base areas have been an important contribution to the economy of Cyprus.
My hope is that with the continuing good will of Greece and Turkey, and the Cyprus communities, these bases will be maintained for many years ahead until Western democracy is no longer under threat in that region.

1.44 p.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: I join in paying tribute to what has already been done in the past week. I must not overdo that tribute—otherwise, it will be grossly misunderstood—but I shall make one reference to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who, as Chairman of the Labour Party, is the custodian of its policy. I am sure that he must be well aware of the resolution which was passed unanimously by the National Executive of the British Labour Party outlining, in my view, majority opinion throughout the Labour movement on what should now be done, and outlining what the British contribution should be in the talks to come. It is on that aspect that I wish to make two or three very brief points.
But I refer, first, to the United Nations and to what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) about the sovereignty of the island and the presence of British troops and naval and air force participation. Did Ivor Richard at the United Nations enjoy my right hon. Friend's confidence when he made the accusation against the Soviet Union that its intervention was purely mischievous and for ideological purposes? I should have thought that some of the comments that were made, by Mr. Gromyko particularly and by others who spoke on behalf of the Soviet Government, were making a contribution to the discussions throughout the world as to the inevitable de-nuclearising of the Mediterranean area. Surely, it is a dominant part of British Labour foreign policy to speak realistically about de-nuclearising the Mediterranean and starting to reduce the military presence not only of Britain but of other nations taking part in all sorts of naval and air force exercises throughout the Mediterranean area.
The situation is complicated by disagreements about Aegean Sea oil agreements and so on between Greece and Turkey, but it is further complicated by other military strategic necessities brought about by the presence of Soviet ships, British ships and United States ships. But, above all, there must be recognition of the part to be played by NATO in this situation.
I come now to the question of the size of the United Nations forces. It was welcome news to hear the Foreign Secretary announce the considerably increased contribution that the United Kingdom is about to make towards the size of the United Nations forces in Cyprus. But there is one important question here. What is the function of the United Nations. The question has been raised by the spokesman for the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) on previous occasions—quite rightly, in my view—as to what is their function in the present situation, when we recognise that the purpose of our policy should be to establish clearly the sovereignty of Cyprus and the sovereignty and independence of the Cypriot people.
Two points have arisen from the Foreign Secretary's statement which I believe to be of considerable importance to all of us in the House concerning the hardening of the idea of segregation of the communities. We all recognise that the future of Cyprus is impossible unless there is communal harmony on the island. It cannot function economically if segregation takes place. Therefore, those people who talk about the future being based upon two autonomous communities are doing a disservice and are playing into the hands of those who want to create maximum havoc for the future economy and well being of the island and the prosperity of its people.
Because we have said that the most important aspect is harmony among the Cypriot people we must say in clear terms, as, indeed, the British Labour Party has said, that President Makarios must be involved in future discussions. We believe that it is the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary to make sure that that point is made and to invite President Makarios to take his rightful place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. The hon. Member knows that we have agreed, in order that other hon. Members shall have their debates, that Front Bench spokesmen should start their speeches about now. If the hon. Member could come to a conclusion, it would help the House.

Mr. Atkinson: Yes, but I understood that the arrangement was that 5 o'clock was not to be a rigid deadline and therefore there was to be some pushing back of the time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. We may go beyond 5 o'clock, but not for that reason. The Adjournment debates would be affected if we continued too long.

Mr. Atkinson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to prolong the debate unnecessarily. However, on the question of the return of President Marakios it is important that we should make this point, and I tried to give it the necessary background. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary is conscious of the desire to have President Makarios involved in the discussions now taking place, for the reasons that we have put forward.
Those discussions, in the opinion of many hon. Members, must include some discussion about the provision of resources to rebuild demolished buildings, to try to put right the damage already done on the island, and to make it not only a military contribution but a contribution towards the restoration of the island and the prosperity of the Cypriot people.

1.52 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) was able to promote this short debate. It has enabled him to emphasise the importance in the widest context of Western security of the British base in Cyprus. Certainly in recent months its usefulness has twice been underlined. Therefore, I find him justified in the conclusion that he drew at the end of his speech.
The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary rightly impressed upon us that the settlement which he brought back is


temporary. There will be plenty of difficulties ahead on the ground and in relation to the improvement of the constitution. It is plain that at the talks which have just been concluded there was considerable tension. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), I am not surprised that the new Greek Government were faced at a moment's notice with a situation which aroused the deepest emotion in Greece, and does still, and they showed considerable courage, for which they should be given credit, in the arrangements they were able to make with the right hon. Gentleman and the Turkish Foreign Minister.
So wide are the implications of the trouble in Cyprus—possible war between Greece and Turkey and possible Russian intervention in the eastern Mediterranean—that we are apt to forget—we might have done if my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) had not reminded us—that this whole matter is about people. It is about simple people, indigenous Cypriots, and the problems of how they are to live together in ethnic groups.
Towards this goal a new start has been made, and this temporary agreement contains two or three ingredients which are realistic and are, therefore, hopeful. First, the right hon. Gentleman hinted that the Constitution of 1960, or whatever was the year, has not been satisfactorily worked for a number of years. I agree with that. One has to recognise that the Turkish minority in future will require what I might call "more bankable assurances" that their majority will not be treated as second-class citizens. On that, I have no doubt, a great deal of the discussion on 8th August will properly take place.
It is necessary, in view of some of the comments which have been made, to say that it is not for others to choose who will be the Cypriot leaders who conduct these talks. It is for the Cypriots themselves to say that. I can only say that, so far as I know, Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash understand perhaps better than anybody else the mutual concessions and tolerances needed to avoid what has been called the barren, outright partition of the island.

Mr. Stanley Newens: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that

President Makarios is the elected President of the Cypriot people and that he has never in any way been displaced by any person who has been chosen by the Cypriot people? Ought we not to recognise that?

Sir A. Douglas-Home: We recognise that there is a legal Government of Cyprus in existence: it is for the Cypriots to say how that Government is to be maintained, changed or whatever they may decide. It is for them to decide, not for us, and not for anybody else outside.
The second point, therefore, which I find realistic is that in the high state of emotions which are bound to rule for some time, the United Nations forces are going to be increased, and they will help the two communities to live together.
The last piece of realism which I think has come out of this after these many years and after the crisis of the last few days is that Greece and Turkey have realised that, within the wide of context of the free nations, they must remain friends. The consequences of any other relationship are just too dire to contemplate.
I promised the Foreign Secretary 10 minutes, so I will close in this way. He knows as well as anybody who has anything to do with Cypriot politics that there may be many a slip between the cup and the lip. However, I should like to repeat my pleasure at what he has achieved, at what the High Commissioner and his other colleagues have achieved, and at what our Armed Forces have done. May this promising start be continued on 8th August and beyond.

1.57 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): I thank the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir A. Douglas-Home) for the typical generosity with which he has spoken.
There is a great wealth of experience in the House on the subject of Cyprus, and this debate has revealed it. I trust that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not refer to their individual contributions, but perhaps I could pick up the points that have emerged from them. I should particularly like to mention the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), whose foresight


managed to secure a debate for us. He raised immediately the question of the safety of United Kingdom citizens, which must be one of our prime considerations.
I do not think that the debate has wholly revealed the situation in Cyprus in relation to making and keeping contact with United Kingdom citizens. The area which the Turkish forces have occupied as they say, under their rights as guarantors of the 1960 treaty of guarantee—is a war zone that has been bitterly fought over. I think that when the full casualties are known we shall realise that the degree of fighting was much greater than was expected initially. That is the basic reason why, in that area at any rate, it has not been possible to get for the constituents of, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis), and others, the information that we ought normally to be able to supply. The sheer difficulty of movement has not been fully understood, although stories have appeared about the organisation of convoys.
I have seen telegrams from our own High Commissioner which have been interrupted with a comment saying "We must now retire to the cellars," and 10 minutes later the Telex continues with "We have now emerged from the cellars." People have been operating in the greatest physical danger in this situation. This applies not only to our own High Commission but to many other British subjects. We have been dealing with a war situation, and this is the only apology that I can offer. The Foreign Office, too, would like to get more information for them about British subjects.
I must pay the very greatest tribute to the High Commissioner. He has not had any particular staff reinforcement at present, for reasons that I will not go into now, but he is in very close touch with the Commander-in-Chief. Operational instructions are agreed between them and none goes out without the other being in the picture. I am satisfied that, although we hope that the worst is over, there has been very good co-ordination between them, after an original hiccough or two, as usually happens at the beginning of this kind of crisis.
As regards the citizens, the situation of the British residents in Kyrenia who

decided to remain in their homes is still unsatisfactory. The Turkish military command is extremely sensitive about the operations of UNFICYP, the United Nations force, as also about the operations of our High Commissioner, although he arranged for consular visits to be paid to Kyrenia on 29th July. I understand that there is no main water supply, but restoration of electricity supplies is said to be in hand. There are complaints of harassment by soldiers and the ransacking of empty houses. I hope that these conditions will improve, but we shall need more co-operation from the Turkish military authorities if we are to satisfy a number of the inquiries made by or on behalf of British subjects.
I asked the Turkish Government to issue instructions to their military commanders that help and assistance should be forthcoming. Now that the immediate warlike situation is over, there is no reason why they should not permit facilities to be restored more easily than they felt able to do earlier in the week.
I understand that it would be possible—and I wish to thank the Turkish Government—to mount a convoy from Kyrenia if families of residents there wish to leave, but from some of the contacts which have been made it seems that families want to stay. It is their homes and properties which are involved, and if they leave what will happen to them? Many of them prefer to stay and face it out. However, it means that, if they decide to stay, we cannot get much communication with them. Therefore, the choice has to be made by them.
The High Commissioner is trying to re-establish the network of contact with British families, and that is taking place. I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth and Foreign Affairs for all he has done. He should have been in Jamaica this week—not sunning himself but attending a conference there—and has made it his job to deal with the problems of British families. I emphasise that a delicate position exists in towns such as Nicosia and Famagusta which are cut off, and many individuals are unable to get out information.
Let me turn to the question of the influence of the United Kingdom. This influence flows from the position of the


sovereign base areas. In addition, the mutual ties built up with the United States enabled both of us to play a significant rôle at different times during these events. The co-operation between us has been complete, and I wish to pay my tribute publicly to the work of the United States administration. It has been of great assistance indeed.
I was asked about the position of the President of the Cyprus Republic. He is the President; there is no gainsaying that. He was elected. He will state his own intentions about proceeding to Geneva or to Cyprus. That is not a matter for me. It is for him to say whether he will go. I understood last night from the Greek Foreign Minister—and I believe that he has stated this publicly—that it is not President Makarios's intention to be present at Geneva next week. But that is a matter for him and not for me, and is a matter for the Greek Cypriot community to decide. I have no doubt that Archbishop Makarios will make his own statement about his intentions. I am ready to see him in London, as he is here, before I leave for Geneva and will be pleased to listen to him. Whether or not he is in Cyprus, I am certain that he will have a great deal of influence on the discussions which are likely to take place.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: As a postscript to that, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that under the Constitution while the President is out of Cyprus the President of the Assembly, Mr. Clerides, is ipso facto acting as President in his absence?

Mr. Callaghan: Section 36(2) of the 1960 Constitution has very explicit legal provisions for the succession to a president who is temporarily out of the country. I do not wish to interpret them now, because the situation is capable of more than one explanation. Certainly Mr. Clerides has an official rôle to play in this, and one major matter that we have to consider is the need for confidence now between the Turkish and the Greek Cypriot communities. Both Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash are capable of supplying that.
There is no escaping the fact that during the past 10 years the Constitution has not operated as it should have done, and the immediate sequence of events has

been first that the violent assumption of power by Nicos Sampson and the overthrow of President Makarios with its associated creeping Enosis prompted the Turkish Government to set in motion the 1960 treaty of guarantee. That in turn has precipitated the landings which have taken place. This has undoubtedly meant that we now have to start again in many ways.
As to the solutions which will be propounded, I have listened to all that hon. Members have said about partition, about a reversion to the 1960 Constitution and about an evolution from the 1960 constitution. I am certain that a number of ideas will be put forward, because a constitution which has not been operating successfully and which has prompted these feelings amongst the Turkish community must tend to mean that a number of different proposals will be brought forward, in my estimation, when we meet again.
I say a special word about the Greek Government. They inherited a situation which they did not create and for which they are not responsible. I trust that they will be given full support in their efforts in the next few weeks to try to ensure that there is a community and an identity of interest as far as possible developing in Cyprus between the Turkish Cypriot community and the Greek Cypriot community. This is a task to which we have to bend ourselves, as well as that of reducing the number of different types of armed forces present on the island.
I was asked about the United Nations and the UNFICYP. The UNFICYP mandate has been in the widest and most general terms since 1964. The numbers of soldiers had been run down, and that is why steps are now being taken to increase its size. I have the figure for which I was asked. The cost has been about £8·7 million a year. It will now have to increase substantially if these forces are to play the part required of them.
I have not mentioned the sovereign base areas. I will take up the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester about naming the units. But some of them, too, have been in a semi-war situation, and up until now it has not seemed appropriate to do that. But certainly we ought to consider doing it,


and I will take up the suggestion, together with the idea of the operational clearing house and the use of military communications which the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed.
The sovereign base areas are important. However, I should not like to be drawn today into a discussion about them. We do not have time to do so, in any event. But every one of us has seen both their possibilities, which are great, and also their limitations in a delicate situation such as we have had in the Middle East, and we have to weigh them over the next few weeks.
Finally, I make this comment about what the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire said. Of course, war between Greece and Turkey would be one of the greatest tragedies which could befall this sensitive and inflamed part of the world. As the Greek Foreign Minister said to me yesterday, "We are condemned to be friends." If there is one thing which gives me hope, it is my judgment that the two Foreign Ministers, with whom I spent six long days and nights, are determined, despite their very real differences, on behalf of the two communities, together with their Governments, to try to find a way through the thicket here. It is therefore vital that we should send our good wishes to the Government of Greece and to the Government of Turkey to sustain them both. They will need a lot of courage in the next few weeks if they are to survive and to enable the people of Cyprus to live the kind of life that we want for them. Inflamed Public opinion can be very dangerous in these circumstances. I do not wish to add to it in any way. I want to subtract from it.
I ask the people of Greece to understand that the remedies for the discontent that lie there may involve some changes, but if they lead to the people of Cyprus being able to enjoy a better life it will be to the advantage of Greece and Turkey and it will certainly be for the benefit of the people themselves.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Finance Act 1974.
2. Appropriation Act 1974.
3. Town and Country Amenities Act 1974.
4. Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974.
5. Pakistan Act 1974.
6. Carriage of Passengers by Road Act 1974.
7. Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1974.
8. Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
9. Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Act 1974.
10. Consumer Credit Act 1974.
11. Control of Pollution Act 1974.
12. Policing of Airports Act 1974.
13. Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1974.
14. Merchant Shipping Act 1974.
15. Housing Act 1974.
16. Housing (Scotland) Act 1974.
17. Friendly Societies Act 1974.
18. Solicitors Act 1974.
19. Railways Act 1974.
20. Insurance Companies Act 1974.
21. Road Traffic Act 1974.
22. Rent Act 1974.
23. Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974.
24. Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
25. Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1974.
26. Ashdown Forest Act 1974.
27. British Transport Docks Act 1974.
28. British Waterways Act 1974.
29. Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974.
30. Thurrock Borough Council Act 1974.
31. Weymouth and Portland Water Sports Act 1974.


32. Wrightson NMA Limited Act 1974.
33. Workington Harbour Act 1974.
34. Greater London Council (Money) Act 1974.
35. Orkney County Council Act 1974.

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

Orders of the Day — TOURISM

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I fear that every subsequent Adjournment debate must now be limited to 24 minutes.

2.11 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: Two years ago in this House I raised some of the problems of tourism and since then I have become more aware of those problems.
Earlier this year I took the chair at a conference run by the European League for Economic Co-operation on the international problems of tourism and the environment. I have also attended nearly all the meetings of the all-party Tourism Committee this year which has been discussing more national problems, and in the course of those meetings I have heard about the arguments for more Government intervention in tourism.
Only a few years ago the tourist organisations threw up their hands in horror at the thought of classifying hotel accommodation and publishing a register. Today there is enormous support for that suggestion and for the national tourist boards' scheme for voluntary registration and to extend it and make it compulsory.
Why do the Government not back these boards with a Government-sponsored scheme? What is the point of sitting back, in company with Denmark, alone among the European countries, and saying that tourists should not be protected in this way? Britain and Denmark are the only countries apparently in step.
Fortunately there are few cases of hotels cheating visitors here, but there would be none if the Government were doing their job properly of protecting citizens and visitors and helping this important trade.
I ask for a strong Government register of all accommodation with power to remove names from that register. It works in traditional tourist countries such as

France, Italy, Spain and so on. Why not here?
Yesterday Sir Mark Henig, the Chairman of the English Tourist Board, asked the Government to concern themselves not only with the quality and pattern of tourism, but with location. That is a plea from the chairman for more Government involvement and money as it is a plea from me today.
When I use the words "more Government money" I do not want to be misunderstood. The fact is that the Government are spending less each year on tourism. It is amazing. Last year the figure was £20 million; this year it is £10 million; next year it will probably be about £3 million. Yet this is the time to spend money to seize the great opportunities that the oil problem has given to us. British people who have the habit of going abroad for holidays cannot afford them now with the fantastic rise in oil prices, and they are taking their holidays at home. The figures are extraordinary. The tourist organisations calculate that probably one-third of those who previously went abroad for their holidays will not be going abroad this summer. Where will they go instead? They will be in this country, but where?
Unless the Government back the tourist boards' efforts, those tourists will be overcrowding the south of England. The latest figures show that 70 per cent. of English tourism is in London and Bristol and south of a line drawn from London to Bristol. No wonder it is almost impossible to reach this Palace because of the number of tourists milling around. I do not object to that. It is inconvenient, but it is not a major source of annoyance.
However, the load must be spread. The national tourist boards know how to do it, they have experience, but they need support. The national tourist boards have been successful. Last year the English Tourist Board encouraged people to go to the small towns of England. That effort was successful. The figures show remarkably increased bookings in hotels in the small towns of England. A huge task lies before us to capture this new British tourist market, and to encourage people to spend their holidays north of the line from Bristol to London.
My own constituency is not far north of that line, and it is typical of the areas


which are not traditional tourist areas. It is in Northamptonshire, in the heart of the rural English countryside. It has beautiful churches, but there is only one nationally known beauty spot, which is Rockingham Castle. The whole area is attractive, and Corby has the unique distinction of being the only garden city steel-making town in Europe. I mention my constituency because it is typical of those which are not known as tourist areas.
I have been speaking chiefly about domestic tourists, that is British tourists on holiday. I have done so because British tourists are the problem and the opportunity. Because our ears are struck by the number of people speaking American-English, German, French and Italian, the problem is widely misunderstood. The English Tourist Board's annual report has a definition, "tourist trip", which refers to a person spending at least one night away from home on holiday. The board calculates that of the 140 million tourist trips taken in Britain in 1972 only 7 million were made by overseas visitors. British tourists are the problem. No one should under-estimate the importance of the 7 million tourists from overseas because of the foreign exchange which they represent. But we confuse ourselves when we measure the effect of tourism on the environment. The effects are caused by our fellow-countrymen taking their holidays in London and Bristol, and south of the Bristol to London line.
I ask for the Government's rate of spending on tourism to be maintained and not reduced drastically, as planned.
How is that money to be spent? Here are our tasks. First, we need a compulsory register of accommodation. Secondly, we need a national network of tourist information centres on the lines of those which have long operated so successfully in France. Thirdly, there must be promotion of off-season tourism. Fourthly, because of the importance of foreign exchange, there must be promotion overseas of our tourist attractions, especially those which are away from the traditional areas. It is not easy to persuade overseas visitors to go outside the traditional areas. The figures show that two out of three visitors to the Tower of London are from over seas. This is year after year.
However, it must be one of the principal efforts of the tourist boards. But we must recognise that this campaign to spread the load needs money, and the Government should not continue the policy of drastically reducing the budget.

2.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) for having raised the question of tourism today. The House will know of his interest in the subject and the work that he has done as chairman of the all-party committee on tourism which provides a forum for discussion of the problems facing the tourist industry and of those who live in areas which are affected, for better or worse, by tourism. I am only sorry that my right hon. Friend could not have been present at a rather late-night debate we had earlier this month when the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) also raised the subject of tourism, when we touched on some of the issues that my right hon. Friend has raised today.
I should like to deal straight away with one of the points raised by my right hon. Friend about hotel registration. My predecessor, under the previous Conservative Government, decided not to implement a proposal by the English Tourist Board which would have required anyone supplying tourist accommodation by way of trade or business to give the board particulars of establishments which had four or more letting bedrooms. The previous Government decided instead on a voluntary scheme to register and classify all forms of tourist accommodation. The results should appear in the form of tourist accommodation in regional accommodation guides in 1975. This, I think, will give tourists as much information in this country as is available in other countries. I feel that at this stage we must now await experience of this vountary scheme before deciding whether further action is necessary.
My right hon. Friend also said that the Government are spending less on tourism. In one sense that is true. In another sense it is a little misleading to say that, because much of Government expenditure on the tourist infrastructure in the past few years has been under the Hotel Development Incentive Scheme whereby


grants were made available for building new hotels and so on. The fact that that scheme is running down technically means that less Government money is being spent. However, the basic amounts of Government money being spent on the general tourist services of the tourist boards and the British Tourist Authority are more or less being maintained. It may be a matter for conjecture whether we ought to be spending more on the boards. I shall come to the point raised by my right hon. Friend in that connection.
The main burden of my right hon. Friend's speech was the need to persuade tourists to distribute themselves more widely throughout the country. Here I am talking not just of England but of the whole of Great Britain. As I see it, the main problem for Government in relation to tourism is to get visitors to move from the prosperous and frequently congested areas to places with unexploited but genuine tourist potential, particularly within the development areas. The number of tourists, whether resident here or overseas, is likely to go on increasing steadily and although the problems of congestion have been exaggerated it is clear that we must pay more attention to tourist management and less to tourist growth.
We shall certainly do nothing in the short run which would discourage people from taking holidays in Britain. Tourism plays too important a part in our trade balance to do that. But, as Sir Mark Henig, the Chairman of the English Tourist Board, said in his foreword to the board's latest annual report, we need to be more concerned with quality, pattern and location than with absolute growth. The difficulty in a free society is that we shall not be able to prevent people from coming here for their holidays if they wish. All that we can do is to try to steer them to places where more tourism would add to our wealth rather than compete with resources devoted to other and often more profitable uses.
There is, however, a limit to what we can do by way of taxation. The idea of a tourist tax as a disincentive leads to many difficulties as the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) found when he introduced his Local Revenue

Bill. We are left with the gentle but unfortunately expensive art of persuasion. There is a limit to the extent that the British Tourist Authority and the national tourist boards can persuade overseas visitors and British people not to spend their holidays in the south of England. I am not convinced that the limit has anywhere near been reached. The question is whether tourists can be directed to the less prosperous areas whose economies would most welcome the patronage which tourism can offer. Obviously any diversion of tourists would affect the more prosperous areas, but they tend to get a disproportionate share of the tourist trade, especially tourists from overseas.
Such diversion would mean a greater emphasis on the use of local resources and the prosperous areas may well welcome such a move if, as the experience of London shows, the tourist invasion is beginning to affect the quality of life. My right hon. Friend was right to make the point about congestion in London. I noted with interest, as I am sure my right hon. Friend did, that the GLC has taken the first tentative step in that direction in a recently published report. Any measure taken to disperse tourists does not mean that tourists in London and the South will be adversely affected. Most of our overseas visitors want to visit London at some time during their stay. In fact, London promotes itself. What we want to do is to get the tourists to go elsewhere.
The Chairman of the English Tourist Board said yesterday that his board is inclined towards a policy aimed broadly at encouraging the containment but more profitable management of the huge tourist industry in the South and the active and direct stimulation of profitable growth north of a line drawn between Bristol and London.
I agree that there is no need for the statutory tourist organisations to promote tourism in the south of England, but looked at from the point of view of Great Britain as a whole, it is by no means self-evident that Government should go out of their way to stimulate profitable growth in the prosperous Midlands and the more prosperous parts of the North. The South enjoys a long holiday season and the Midlands and parts of the North benefit out of season from business visitors and from the support that comes


from being adjacent to a free-spending large urban area. Self-help should be the policy in all such cases. Our scarce resources should be used to help the more fragile areas with few alternative means of support.
That raises a point of more general application. My right hon. Friend has referred to the need for a national network of tourist offices. There is already a network of tourist information centres. Well over 50 such centres operate as national centres, giving general information services throughout the whole of Britain. Many more provide a booking service for visitors who want immediate accommodation. The tourist boards deserve to be congratulated on their initiative in bringing the existing information services together and making them provide a more efficient service to tourists.
The question that must be asked is whether it is right that the community as a whole should be asked to provide a service providing, for example, instant booking facilities which might be regarded as luxurious by the home tourist. It is interesting to consider the outstandingly successful tourist organisation of the Netherlands which receives virtually no financial support from central Government. Tourist pay a booking fee for the first night's accommodation and the cost of providing information and other services is financed by trade and the local authorities. That is not to say that there is not a good case for subsidy when it will help to steer visitors to the less prosperous areas.
One weapon in our armoury is the financial assistance that is provided under Section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 to projects that will provide or improve tourist amenities and facilities in the development areas. The national tourist boards have used this money—amounting to £2·5 million this year—to help provide a wide range of amenities and facilities, including small accommodation projects, indoor entertainment, local museums, bird gardens, water and other sports facilities and craft centres.
The Wales Tourist Board, for example, has concentrated on attracting visitors to inland and rural areas, and even the older industrial areas such as Blaenau

Ffestiniog, so as to relieve the pressure on the resorts.
Much effort has been extended on encouraging farmers to provide bed and breakfast facilities and such facilities as pony trekking. All this can bring new life into areas affected or threatened with depopulation.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned off-season promotion. The problem of the distribution of tourists in terms of time as well as space is one which has been with us for as long as the promotion of tourism has been an objective of Government policy. The problem has eased somewhat in recent years with the substantial increase in people's holiday entitlements. People are more and more inclined to take shorter holidays and to have more of them spread over the year.
The hotel and travel trade has also become much more price conscious in its marketing and this has helped dissuade people from taking their holidays in July and August when capacity is stretched to the utmost. In so far as off-season promotion is rewarding—and the assumption must be that it is—it must be right to examine whether those who are most likely to benefit should pay the cost.
This is a matter to which we are giving our attention. Where does this leave Kettering and the East Midlands? This is certainly one area with unexploited but genuine tourist potential. As my right hon. Friend undoubtedly knows, it is an area lying between Birmingham and the sea and London and the north, with the result that some people hurry through it in their cars as if the devil were at their heels. More people could stay there and I am glad to say that means of attracting them are being studied.
The interests concerned are looking at ways of changing the present pattern of the distribution of tourists in the Midlands. As my right hon. Friend knows, Kettering now has a flourishing Tourist Information Centre. There are four establishments in the town listed in the East Midlands Tourist Board's 1974 accommodation guide. Others, including one of the two large hotels, are not listed but I hope that they will soon join as a result of the efforts which the Regional


Tourist Board is making this year to enlarge the accommodation registered there.
The Forestry Commission has co-operated by creating nature trails in the area, either alone or jointly with the Northamptonshire Naturalists' Trust. There is clearly room in this part of England for the active and direct stimulation of profitable growth to which my right hon. Friend and the Chairman of the English Tourist Board referred yesterday. But Kettering, for example, has a rate of unemployment which is little more than half the national average and I am sure my right hon. Friend would be among the first to agree that it would be wrong in our present difficult circumstances to draw on the limited resources of the Exchequer to subsidise activities which should be sponsored by those who benefit from them and are in a position to pay.
It is a matter for serious consideration whether the Government contribution through the tourist organisations ought not to be concentrated to a greater extent on the less-favoured regions. This would help meet my right hon. Friend's main point about the dispersal of tourists from the congested South.
The East Midlands Tourist Board and the Northamptonshire County Council are working together to promote the area. They should be able, with the help of local interests concerned, to promote the tourist attractions of the area nationally and, through the British touris authority, internationally.
I bring my remarks to a close at that point. Once again I thank my right hon. Friend for having raised this matter, which occupies a considerable part of my time in the Department. My right hon. Friend can rest assured that we are constantly looking at our tourist expenditure and our forms of tourist organisation with a view to seeing whether we cannot improve them to bring about the desirable ends to which he has referred.

Orders of the Day — DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This should finish at one minute to three o'clock precisely.

2.34 p.m.

Mr. Martin McLaren: We now turn to the problem raised in the consultative document issued by the Department of Employment dealing with sheltered employment for disabled people. I have an interest to declare, altough not a financial one, as the deputy chairman of one of the voluntary societies providing employment for the blind, the General Welfare of the Blind.
We have workshops in London and Luton. We employ over 100 blind people making up-to-date products such as aerosols Thanks to our very able general manager and his supporting staff, the enterprise is carried on successfully. The consultative document is in the nature of a Green Paper. It is said at the outset that it is intended to provide a basis for widespread consultation and public debate on the issues involved. That is why it is appropriate that we should discuss it this afternoon.
The first point I have to make about the document is that the opportunities offered for consultation were not quite adequate. The document came out in December 1973 and the deadline for comments was fixed as 31st March. That was far too short for proper consultation, particularly in a period covering the three-day working week, the coal strike, the General Election and the reform of local government. It is fair to say that the deadline was later extended, but the initial short period was perhaps an example of the rather autocratic and inconsiderate behaviour too often adopted by Government Departments. Another barrier to full consultation was that the document was not available to the blind in braille until a late stage.
The main question canvassed in the document was whether sheltered employment ought to be run by local authorities or by a central agency. This was a consultative document in the sense that it did not make any conclusive recommendations. It set out the arguments on both sides, but anyone reading it can see


that the authors felt no doubt that a system of central control would be more efficient and convenient and that the chosen agency should be Remploy Ltd., which would take over the work carried on by the blind workshops. We see here a tendency of central Government to prefer a national uniform solution.
It is significant to consider the reception the document had from people working in these specialised fields. The reception was pretty well unfavourable. A memorandum issued by the Association of County Councils states that the association resolved:
That the Government be informed that the Association consider a unified sheltered workshop service should be under local rather than central Government control on the understanding that adequate financial provision is made for this purpose.
The association also refers to the work done by local authorities in providing day pastime centres and points out that the work of these and the work of sheltered workshops merge into one another and so there are good arguments why the two functions should be carried out by the same body. There should be a flexible range of work opportunities under one control. The association goes to the root of the argument for local government control when it says that its function is to provide local services for local people, with central Government setting minimum standards. Locally managed services should be under local democratic control. The association argues that Remploy may be useful in regional planning and national marketing and management expertise, but not to the extent that it should overthrow local control. Tribute is paid by the association to the invaluable work of voluntary organisations, and I can testify to the friendly relations between local authorities and the various societies involved.
The association prefers that the service should be financed by a specific grant rather than through the rate support grant.
I turn now to comments made on the consultative document by the Joint Committee of the London Workshops for the Blind. That committee also refer to the obvious bias in favour of a central Government system based on the convenience of using the existing Remploy set-up. The Committee poses the basic

question whether sheltered workshops are a social welfare or an employment service, and it expresses the firm view that they are primarily part of the social welfare service and that as such ought to come under the control of the local authorities, as is now the case with the sheltered workshops for the blind.
It concludes that a satisfactory service can best be developed under a local authority system of control, with some facilities for consultation and co-operation at national level, and recommends the formation of a working party, representative of all interests, to make recommendations, using the consultative document as a starting point.
I come now to the views of the National Association of Industries for the Blind. It, too, is against a central Government system and comments that this would run counter to the policy of successive Governments on devolution of power, as witness the Kilbrandon Report. It would involve control of some 250 factories throughout the country, with common rules and rationalisation. It, too, points to the bias in the report in favour of the Remploy system, and comments that the document makes no attempt to quantify the capital costs involved in support of that system.
The statement in the document that
Sheltered employment finds its justification on social and not on financial or economic grounds. …
is, the NAIB thinks, a conclusive argument for some form of local authority control. Under such control, the sheltered employment services can properly be integrated with the full range of services provided for the handicapped.
The NAIB refers to the interesting question of whether there should be special facilities for the sheltered employment of blind people as contrasted with people otherwise handicapped. Many experts think that the blind present special problems which justify their separate treatment. For example, if they are mixed with mentally disturbed people, it is frightening for the blind not to be able to see them or to ward off trouble in ways that sighted people can do. The association refers to the freedom of severely disabled persons to choose their own employment. These people are not mere pawns on the board


to be moved at will. Finally, the association asks for much more time for consideration.
I come next to the National League of the Blind and the Disabled, the trade union, as it might be described. It has secured wages for the blind equivalent to those of manual workers employed by local authorities. These wages are a good deal higher than those paid by Remploy, and the league is naturally not prepared to see this advantage whittled away. If anyone wants to know why Remploy pays low wages, he must ask the Department of Employment. Hence, the league says roundly:
We would resist any efforts to merge the Blind Workshops into Remploy. We do not like their wages and other conditions of employment nor the remoteness of control.
To use a parliamentary metaphor, when the question was put on the recommendations in the consultative document the "Noes" had it by a large majority.
This is a little example perhaps of the struggle that goes on between two strands in English thought. On the one hand, there are the rationalists, who want to build a universal administrative system and have no time for sentimental feelings. On the other hand, there are, and always have been, people who look at life less logically and think that local ways and customs are important. Such people are often the despair of Government Departments; they are people who, to take a topical example, revolt against projects like Stansted or Cublington or Maplin; they are people who want to restore derelict canals; they are people who care about individuals. They remember the phrase, which I think belongs to Emerson:
System-grinders hate the truth.
These are the people who want to retain the voluntary societies and local control of sheltered employment. I hope that their reasons and views will prevail and that the consultative document, valuable though it has been as a survey, will be consigned to the proper pigeon-hole.

2.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I am extremely glad to have the opportunity to speak on this subject, because, despite its importance, it does not receive the publicity which it should. I know that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr.

McLaren) is primarily concerned with the provision of sheltered employment for the blind, but I first make a few general comments about the progress we have made and the way in which we are proceeding in the post-consultative document period.
The ideal arrangement is, of course, for disabled people to take their places alongside fully fit people in ordinary employment. It is my Department's objective to ensure that as many disabled people as possible are enabled to do this. However, there are some people who are so severely disabled that this is not possible, although they are willing and able to work if special conditions of employment can be provided. Sheltered employment has developed over the years to meet this need. There are now some 13,500 severely disabled workers employed in over 200 establishments run by a variety of organisations—local authorities, voluntary bodies, and, since the last war, Remploy, a non-profit-making limited company set up specifically for this purpose. I should like to pay a tribute to all those concerned—both the severely disabled workers themselves, who in their work overcome what are often very severe handicaps and the others who help to make their employment possible.
As the hon. Member will know, my Department has for some time now been engaged in a comprehensive review of its policies and services for disabled people. One of the most important matters that this review has covered has been sheltered employment. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West has referred to the consultative document on sheltered employment, published last year under the previous administration. I think it might be helpful in these circumstances if I reminded hon. Members of the main features of the document and the way in which consultations about its contents have been pursued.
It is not true to suggest that the consultative document proposed centralised control of sheltered employment throughout the country. That is only one of several options which it posed. It suggested a number of ways in which the present arrangements might be improved—for example, that there should be more diversification in types of sheltered work, more emphasis on rehabilitation to outside industry from sheltered workshops,


and more integration within sheltered employment; for instance, between blind and sighted workers, who are largely provided for at present in separate establishments.
The document also argued that whilst some progress in making these improvements could be made within the present system, under which responsibility for the provision of sheltered employment is divided between a number of agencies, on balance it would be sensible to unify responsibility for this provision. The document suggested that overall statutory responsibility should be placed on either central Government or local government. However, it came to no definite conclusions on this question. This was reasonable since the document was intended to provide the basis for a full discussion of the issues involved, rather than to provide definite answers.
It was recognised at the outset that wide consultation was essential before any decisions could be taken about the future of sheltered employment. This was why a consultative document was produced. Nearly 20,000 copies of the document were distributed to a large number of interested organisations and individuals. These included all the voluntary bodies and other organisations which provide, or are concerned with the provision of, sheltered employment, all local authorities, many organisations representing disabled people, and all the Department's district disablement advisory committees.
In all, a period of some four-and-a-half months was eventually allowed, after the publication of the document in mid-December last year, for the submission of written comments. Although I know of a few organisations which experienced some difficulties in submitting their comments in the time available—in the main as a result of the three-day working week and State of Emergency declared by the previous administration—on the whole this period seems to me to have been sufficient. We appreciate the difficulties facing blind people who have had to wait a long time for braille copies. We shall look into the situation.
The Department has now received about 400 separate comments on the document.

These have revealed a wide range of opinions about the future of sheltered employment. They are proving most helpful in our consideration of the issues involved, and I should like to take the opportunity of thanking all those who took the trouble to write to us to contribute their views. We have also had the benefit of the helpful advice of the Department's National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People.
I should perhaps say at this point that it was never envisaged that the submission of written comments should constitute the sum total of the consultative process, nor that the ideas put forward in the consultative document were the only ones which could be considered. Over the last two or three months officials of my Department have had a number of meetings with some of the more important organisations with an interest in sheltered employment in order to discuss their views in more detail. I envisage that a number of further discussions of this kind will be necessary before definite decisions can be taken. I can assure hon. Members that there is no intention of taking any decisions on the future of sheltered employment without very careful assessment of the views of those concerned. We still have an open mind on the subject, and nothing could be further from the truth than the suggestion, made in some quarters, that the Government had made up their mind at a very early stage of the consultative process on how it wanted to reorganise sheltered employment. I hope that statement assuages some of the hon. Gentleman's anxiety.
However, on the other hand, I am certain that unnecessary delay in reaching decisions could also be harmful. The issue of the consultative document has provoked a good deal of interest and discussion, as was the intention. But it has also aroused some feelings of uncertainty about the future among the disabled workers in the workshops and other people concerned with the provision of employment for them. I should not want to see this state of affairs continue longer than is required to discuss the matter adequately with those concerned.

Mr. McLaren: I am reassured by what the Minister said. Nevertheless, will he admit that the document has an inbuilt bias in favour of the Remploy system?

Mr. Walker: A lot depends on the interpretation people place on the document. I do not take issue with the hon. Gentleman on that point, particularly in regard to his strictures on the time factor.
Perhaps I could turn to some of the points which I know have caused particular concern in some quarters. First, I will refer to the future of workshops for blind people. I am well aware that a number of organisations representing blind people are unhappy at some of the ideas put forward in the consultative document—particularly the implications of the suggestion that there should be closer integration between blind people and sighted workers in sheltered employment, and the possibility of national control in the future of what has previously in the case of blind people been a local responsibility. In this matter, as in the others dealt with in the consultative document. I can assure the House that no changes will be made unless we are certain that they are in the interests of the blind and other severely disabled workers.
I am also aware of the concern expressed about the natural need of the blind, the disabled and other organisations to ensure that the wages and other conditions of employment enjoyed by those in the workshops for the blind do not suffer as a result of the reorganisation of sheltered employment. Nothing of the kind was proposed in the consultative document. The document said that it was desired to eliminate the disparities which had developed, and it suggested that a national negotiating body should be established to agree a basis of a national uniform wage structure for all disabled people in sheltered employment. Any change will only be made after consultation with all those concerned, and if we are sure that they are in the interests of the blind and other severely disabled people in the workshops.
I want now to say a few words about the future of Remploy. Doubts have been expressed about the appropriateness of giving an organisation like the present Remploy overall responsibility for planning, directing and co-ordinating the provision of sheltered employment. This was one of the possibilities discussed in the consultative document. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall bear this view very much in mind in reaching our

decisions on the future of sheltered employment because I know that it is strongly held in some quarters. However, I trust that the hon. Gentleman will join me in paying tribute to the excellent work done by Remploy over the years, especially with respect to the steadily increasing numbers of severely disabled people whom it has been able to employ in its factories.
Finally, there is the future rôle of voluntary bodies. The consultative document made it clear that, whatever organisational solution was adopted for the future, there would be a need for continuing co-operation with voluntary endeavour which has played such an important rôle in the development of sheltered employment in the past. This point has perhaps been lost sight of to some extent in the subsequent debate generated by the consultative document. I take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's belief that there will continue to be a most important rôle for voluntary bodies.
To sum up, the Government are committed here, as elsewhere, to improving the arrangements made for disabled people. But further discussions and careful consideration of the views of all those concerned will be required before definite decisions can be taken. The comments of the hon. Gentleman today have been valuable and constructive. I assure him that his remarks will be taken fully into account, with all the many other suggestions which have been made to us, before we reach our final conclusion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I am much obliged to the Minister. We now have one minute in the bank.

Orders of the Day — ROADS

2.59 p.m.

Mr. Alan Fitch: I have to declare an interest in the subject of roads, though it is not a financial one. I am chairman of the all-party Road Study Group, and I was very pleased when the present Minister of Transport said on 3rd April:
I am satisfied that, after allowing for a substantial transfer of traffic and resources from road to rail, the continued development of a national network of inter-urban roads is justified."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April 1974; Vol. 871, c. 12521.]


More recently my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said on 24th May:
I spend perhaps more of my time meeting delegations from groups which desire to have roads than delegations from groups which do not desire them, because it has been accepted that roads are frequently one of the ways of preserving certain parts of the environment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May 1974; Vol. 874, c. 850.]
It is encouraging that both Ministers see a constructive roads policy playing a major rôle in an integrated transport policy.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made what to me was a very important point when he spoke of roads as being one of the ways of preserving the environment. Much of the opposition to a forward-looking roads policy in general and to the construction of motorways in particular comes from a misguided view of what improves or what detracts from the environment.
We all want to see our environment improved, and it is a matter of pleasure to me that more and more people are taking an interest in this problem. Unfortunately, however, some people are developing the attitude of an ostrich with its head in the sand to the motor car and to road vehicles in general and, in turn, to the construction of new roads. They adopt, quite unconsciously I am sure, the view that all road vehicles are a menace except their own cars. The truth is that we shall see more and more cars on our roads, despite the fact that we are passing through an economic crisis which could well mean that our standard of living remains static for the next two or three years.
In my opinion, it is still the aim of many young married couples to own, first a house and then a car. I will not weary the House with figures, but all estimates for the future show that more families are owning cars. The SELNEC transport study shows that in the North-West only 25 per cent. of householders will not own a car by 1984
I believe that a properly planned network of roads can improve rather than detract from the environment. I have in mind in particular the M6, the design and construction of which has improved the surrounding area and enabled thousands of people to enjoy the beauty of the Lake

District after a relatively quick journey time.
The M62 is another example of a significant piece of road engineering giving an added beauty to the surrounding hills.
Despite an economic crisis, or the suggested changes in energy pattern, road vehicle traffic will expand and we must plan accordingly. In the North-West region the figure for private vehicles per household is 0·658 whilst for the country as a whole the figure is 0·747 per household. Putting it in another way, in the North-West there are two cars for every three households.
I should like to turn to the transport policy of the Greater Manchester Metropolitan county, of which Wigan forms a not unimportant part. The Greater Manchester TPP, in a draft submission, states:
Greater Manchester is one of Britain's largest and most important urban areas containing within its boundaries over 2·7 million people and more than 1·2 million jobs. It has a central urban core of Manchester and Salford which contains the regional centre, a large concentration of manufacturing employment, densely populated inner suburbs and more spacious outer residential areas. Surrounding this core is an outer ring of manufacturing towns linked with Manchester, but themselves containing important concentrations of offices, shops, industry and people. In the western part of the area, the urbanised belt extends through a series of small industrial towns and mining settlements across to Wigan, an important manufacturing and service centre. This pattern of development creates complex demands for the movement of people and goods.
This is an admirable summing up of the factors influencing the transport needs of the Greater Manchester Metropolitan County.
Another factor is that of population, which has remained stable at 2·7 million people for the last 20 years, and recent estimates suggest that in the foreseeable future this figure is not likely to increase. But the stability in numbers must not conceal the fact that important changes have taken place in the metropolitan county. In general, the older inner areas, particularly of the conurbation centre, have been losing population through redevelopment whilst the outer areas, with land available for residential development, have been expanding. This is an important factor in planning transport needs.
What should be the objectives of a regional transport policy? Perhaps I may refer briefly to some of them. Attractive and efficient public transport facilities should be provided to cater for those movements of people who are most economically or beneficially carried by public transport.
It is necessary to direct investment in highway improvement towards providing for essential business and commercial traffic a network of good quality routes, linking major employment centres in the area to the national motorway network and to important railheads, ports and airports. Priority should be given to highway schemes which improve the environment by relieving traffic congestion in city and town centres.
Efficient use should be made of the existing road network by means of day-to-day control, where possible by a computer system. Consideration should be given to the designation of routes for heavy lorries and to car parking policies in major centres of population which favour the provision of short-stay parking spaces to cater for essential commercial business and shopping needs.
The Ministry figure for local transport spending for 1975–76 is unlikely to be much in excess of £585 million, of which Manchester's share will be about £38 million. Proposals costing £58 million have been submitted by the TPP. The proposals have been broken down into three categories: £31 million already committed, £20 million for essential projects and nearly £7 million for less essential expenditure. Under the new system the Government have the final word both on the total amount spent on transport by local authorities and on how it is to be financed. If the £38 million figure is insisted upon, none of the less essential and little of the essential expenditure will be possible. Of the £11 million proposed for expenditure on new road construction, nearly £9 million falls into those two categories.
I ask the Minister to think again about his suggested maximum of £38 million and, in view of the transport needs of Greater Manchester, to revise his estimate upwards. I realise that we have a serious economic crisis to deal with but, as the Government's policy is mild reflation—I think that is the right policy—an effici-

ent transport policy is essential to improve our growth rate. The national basis on which available resources are allocated is weighted unfairly against the metropolitan counties, particularly Greater Manchester.
I am not sure what will happen about the proposed mid-Lancashire motorway linking M6 and M61. I understand that it is to be a continuation of the M58, but nothing about it appears in the document published on Monday, and that is a significant omission. Wigan Metropolitan District Council and Bolton Metropolitan District Council would like a speedy affirmative reply that this project is to go ahead. I should like the proposed Manchester-Sheffield motorway to be given the go-ahead, but that is a purely personal point of view.
In reply to a Written Question on 17th June, the Minister of Transport made a significant policy statement which should have received more attention. In that reply the Minister rightly spoke of the necessity of a continuing national road programme, but went on to say that future expenditure will have to be reduced in real terms. The road programme cannot be immune from Government decisions on public expenditure, but I regret that expenditure has been reduced in real terms quite apart from current money terms. The estimates published on 1st July show that expenditure on trunk roads and motorways in the 1974–75 programme will be even less than was proposed in March this year. Making allowances for the very rapid increase in costs, with particular reference to the cost of materials, it would seem that in real terms that is, the amount of road construction improvement and maintenance achieved—the road programme is being run down to a far greater extent than is desirable for our economic wellbeing, and that the roads programme cannot be switched on and off without damage to transport efficiency.
I note that the Minister said in his June statement that some 3,100 miles of a national network of motorways would be completed by the 1980s. However, I do not know what he meant by the phrase "the 1980s". That is a span of 10 years. I hope that it would be in the year 1980. I should point out that France, Germany and Italy will have considerably


more mileage completed by then, and that our roads are more congested.
I note with interest the consultative paper on measures which may be taken to minimise the impact of heavy lorries, which was published a few days ago. This is a problem which concerns many people. Here again, however, the impact can be minimised by more and not fewer roads, particularly those built to bypass our towns and cities.
In assessing a road programme for the future, one fact stands out above all others. It is that well over 80 per cent. of our goods and people are transported by road. While I am in favour of railways, aircraft and canals playing a greater part in an integrated transport system by encouraging them to carry more goods and people, the great bulk of goods and people will continue to be conveyed by road.
The road programme must not be treated as a thing apart. It must be treated as something that is central to the achievement of many of the Government's aims—economic efficiency, future growth and the improvement of the quality of life and the environment. All these things will be retarded if the road programme continues to be chopped by successive Governments.

3.12 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Charles R. Morris): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) has returned to a subject on which he speaks with such authority and, indeed, eloquence. I assure him that the points he has made in regard to the M6/M62 and the link between the M61 and the M6 will be taken into very serious consideration and drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport.
I am also pleased, even at this hour, to be given the opportunity to enlarge on the short statement of our future plans for roads which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport made on 17th June, to which my hon. Friend referred. I believe it to be essential that we should adopt a co-ordinated approach to transport. Transport takes a good deal of our national resources. It forms a major part of industrial costs, accounting for up to 40 per cent. of some industries' net out

put. It is also a major consumer of energy, representing 14 per cent. of our total energy requirements. It is, of course, almost exclusively dependent on oil, one of the most sensitive and, now, increasingly expensive of our energy sources. So we must be sure that we are allocating resources between the various forms of transport sensibly and without waste.
Our aim is properly to maximise the benefits and minimise the costs, with quick, efficient movement of goods and people as a prime objective. So the ideal transport plan should be one in which the emphasis given to each mode of transport reflects its ability to carry out a particular transport task better than any other. Some forms of transport will always be interchangeable but invariably some will be better suited to the job than others. The choice can seldom be made against so simple a background. I need hardly remind hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan, of the numerous other considerations that we must take into the balance when we decide our transport priorities.
My hon. Friend is concerned about the effects of public expenditure cuts on transport spending, particularly the road sector. Perhaps my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that we have not been unmindful of our obligations. I remind him that in the past five years the Government have expended £2,000 million in improving and constructing roads and motorways in England. I am afraid that transport and other areas of Government spending cannot be excepted from general cut-backs. There must be an order of priorities; for example, an overriding need for new or improved houses may demand more cuts in the transport sector than elsewhere.
Retrenchment comes hard in any situation. We cannot change the particular character of transport investment to make it easier but we can try to ensure by continuous review and monitoring that we identify those areas which can bear sudden cutbacks with the least difficulty, with the least adverse effect on the achieving of our general transport objectives and on the efficiency of the transport system as a whole.
My hon. Friend referred to the transport policy programme submitted by the


Greater Manchester Council Metropolitan Authority. I should explain to him that the amount of transport supplementary grant that the Greater Manchester Council will receive in 1975–76 will depend on a number of factors. The first factor is the Secretary of State's view of the GMC's proposal and policy in its first grant submission. The Department, as my hon. Friend indicated, has seen preliminary drafts of the GMC's first TPP, but we understand that it is not due for formal approval by the council until 1st August. At this stage Ministers cannot say anything about the content of Manchester's TPP or about the amount of TSG the GMC is likely to receive.
At a recent meeting of representatives of the metropolitan county councils my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport explained the implications of the limitation of resources for local transport expenditure over the next few years for individual TPPs. Councils will be notified of their allocation of TSG for 1975–76 towards the end of this year, and they will be given the reasons for the Secretary of State's decisions. It will then be for each council to decide for itself which proposals should go ahead in the light of its allocation of TSG and the Secretary of State's views.
My hon. Friend will accept that at present there are a number of pressures to which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport is subject. As the Minister with a special responsibility for urban environment, I am concerned that the transport needs of towns and cities are met in ways which do not destroy or damage the surroundings in which people live and work. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House could give me examples of how that need has been met in the past at vast social cost to the community. Equally, I am aware that the British public generally take a somewhat ambivalent attitude to the provision of roads and motorways. In the context of roads and motorways it is perhaps worth reminding the House that one man's intrusion is another man's form of escape.
May I assure my hon. Friend that all the points that he has made during the course of his illuminating contribution will be given close and detailed consideration.

Orders of the Day — STATIONERY OFFICE, HARROW

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) I will repeat the timings, which have been altered since the original list was issued. This debate will take place between 3.20 p.m. and 3.47 p.m., to be divided between the hon. Member and the Minister.

3.20 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I am grateful to the Minister of State for the Civil Service Department for attending to answer the debate and for the opportunity to raise a matter that is as scandalous as it is absurd. I refer to the question of Her Majesty's Stationery Office and in particular the Stationery Office in the constituency of Harrow. The general situation concerning the trouble in the printing industry will be well known to the House. Today marks the sixth week since Parliament has been deprived of its papers as a result of this dispute.
Great inconvenience has been caused to Members, Ministers, the Civil Service and the many people and bodies outside the House who depend for the administration of this country upon the proper printing of documents to carry out their important business. In addition, the position is getting worse because the Post Office is being affected. Telephone directories are three months late in being delivered and I understand that stocks of postal orders, Giro cheques and National Savings certificates are liable to be exhausted within a few days.
I am grateful to one of my hon. Friends who winkled out of the Minister by way of a Question recently the reply that no less than £8,000 a week was being paid by the taxpayer to an agency for typists and workers to assist in the situation which has arisen as a result of the dispute in the printing industry.
I accept that those stoppages have happened before. For all the time that I have been in Parliament at some stage a Minister has had to get up and apologise for the inconvenience caused. But it has never before been on this scale in my experience. In my 10 years in the House I do not recall a longer period during which Parliament and the public have been deprived of the necessary papers with which to work.
What matters now is what the Government are to do about the future. This is an appalling way to run the affairs of our country in 1974. It is all caused by an absurd inter-union squabble within the printing industry. Not only Members of Parliament and civil servants are being inconvenienced. Worse than the inconvenience, the disputes are causing great hardship to innocent people working within the industry, many of whom are my constituents working at Her Majesty's Stationery Office at Harrow.
This brings me to the constituency interest I want to raise. The dispute in Harrow is now in its 18th week. The row is between two unions, SOGAT and the National Graphical Association. It concerns the manning of the new Linotron machine of which the only one is in the Stationery Office at Wealdstone. When it originally came the unions ordained from on high that SOGAT should man the machine in London and the NGA should man it outside London. The NGA apparently manned it successfully without trouble for 10 months.
Then in some mysterious way which I do not understand the disputes which were raging among those working on the Financial Times and I believe The Times were transferred to Harrow. I am told by the workpeople there that the dispute was transferred to Harrow because that was the only place in which the machine was operating. The SOGAT workers at Harrow came out on strike. This was a strike at national level, as a result of which the women were paid strike pay. The men were subsidised by being given extra work from the newspapers. After four weeks they told the management at Harrow that they would come in and work normally, but after working for only 10 minutes they asked whether the work in question had come from the Linotron machine and, when they were informed that it had, they immediately blacked the work. There has been no production of telephone directories since then. The men who refused to do the work are still out in dispute and at present NGA and SOGAT are still not speaking to one another to try to resolve the dispute.
The TUC is either unwilling or unable to take part in the problem. While I am not necessarily referring to the Minister

present today, the Government and Ministers generally appear to be as hypnotised by this important trade union dispute as a rabbit is by a stoat. The result of this appalling inactivity is that engineers and other tradesmen in the works, mostly in the maintenance department—people who are my constituents—are being deprived of £20 a week and more, money which they need to live on. They are innocent parties and have no control over the situation which is causing them great hardship. They are so concerned that they wrote to the Secretary of State for Employment on 9th June. One of their leaders stated in the letter:
I'm writing on behalf of my fellow workmates and myself from the Engineers' Department, from HM Stationery Office, Wealdstone … to ask if you are aware of the existing situation we are in. This is the tenth week of interunion dispute not of our making"—
this was written on 9th June, and many more weeks have since passed—
We are given to believe that this dispute came from the Financial Times newspaper, but with The Times already in financial trouble the newspapers and the unions then transferred it to HMSO, Harrow Press, and now we go it alone.
The unions, NGA and SOGAT, are not talking and management are saying that it is out of their hands. The rumours and general talk is that the Harrow Press will close down or that it will die a slow death. Already the young people are leaving, and Harrow Press is now becoming like an old people's home just waiting for the undertaker …
We hope you may be able to inform us, do we work and live again, or do we die the slow death the rumours say?
A reply to that letter was made on 25th June from an official who stated merely that the Secretary of State was aware of the problems and that the Minister of State, who had particular responsibility for industrial relations matters had been concerned in the dispute for some time and that arrangements had been made for a general meeting with the two unions on 26th June. The meeting took place and the Minister of State took the chair, but absolutely nothing happened and the dispute still goes on.
The Government have been appallingly complacent and ineffective in this dispute. It is not sufficient for a Minister to take a chair at a meeting and then for the Government to hope against hope that the matter will be resolved. The Government are the employers in this case. This is not private industry. The Government have a duty to the public and to the


innocent work people concerned to resolve this farcical union row.
If this is to be the pattern of union activity and Government inactivity in the future, woe betide us if we get more nationalisation. What has happened to those brave words about the Government being able to deal better with the unions and with cases of intransigence in interunion squabbles which affect many people? I ask the Minister to say what comfort he can give those of my constituents who are innocent parties to the dispute but who are losing £20 a week because of flatters outside their control. These people want to work normally. I ask the hon. Gentleman what the Government are doing to give Parliament and the public the services which in this day and age they are entitled to.

2.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Robert Sheldon): The hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) has used some very colourful language in describing the problems of Harrow. I do not wish to refer to those remarks, but I take the opportunity of correcting some of the mis-statements he has made about parliamentary papers in particular. That is a rather different matter from the one he raised concerning the Harrow Press. Parliamentary papers are produced at St. Stephen's Press. The dispute is not, and has not been, an inter-union dispute at all.
I also offer my gratitude to the staff of HMSO for the magnificent work that has been carried out by the use of emergency arrangements whereby, in one way or another, we have been able to produce the essential parliamentary papers without which much of our business could not have been done so effectively.
Although these problems have occurred in the past, this year they have been greater than on any previous occasions. They have been all the greater because, coming at the end of the Session, they have arrived at a time when a large amount of legislation was going through the House, entailing an inordinate amount of extra printing. When Bills are amended, for example, they have to be reprinted. The sheer physical amount of papers presented for the use of hon. Members presented great difficulties because the management of the Vote Office

does not usually allow for this kind of bulky storage.
I come now to the Harrow Press. It is one of our older presses. It was started up in 1917, on the present site. It is also one of the largest of our presses, of which we have eight. We employ about 750 staff at Harrow, where they print telephone directories, and so on. The Harrow Press started to print telephone directories in 1920.

Mr. Clement Freud: Before the hon. Gentleman goes to Harrow, will he give an assurance that copies of HANSARD will be retrospectively published?

Mr. Sheldon: I am happy to give that assurance. All the printing will be completed at the end of the dispute, including all the printing required in permanent form—HANSARD, Bills and other publications forming the permanent record of the House.
With the enormous increase in printing requirements, a new press was set up in Gateshead in 1969, and it, too, prints telephone directories. The method of printing was very different there from that undertaken at the Harrow Press. At Gateshead we use the latest techniques in photo-composition, rotary presses and mechanised binding. There are over 400 employees there. We have enjoyed harmonious relations in the past, but at Gateshead we had the advantage of not having to introduce new techniques. We enjoyed great success in Gateshead. In view of our happy experience there, naturally, when considering the old machinery at Harrow, we sought to bring about a comparable change in the Harrow Press. The new machinery which has been installed there was to provide the necessary mechanisation and improvements.
The bringing of new processes to areas where existing methods have been used for a long time cannot fail to be other than complicated. The working practices have fundamentally changed. Before the introduction of the new techniques, we had hot metal typesetting, and old printing machines using metal printing plates. That equipment is to be replaced by new computer-assisted typesetting and magnetic tapes with large rotary printing


machines using photopolymer printing plates.
Arrangements were made to inform the staff accordingly and to try to effect the transition from one method of printing to another. Progress was made over a number of agreements for the operation of the new machinery, but it was not completed. In certain respects we were not able to make satisfactory arrangements. Meanwhile, printing continued on the old machines. Recently the progress has been hampered by the dispute.
It is of crucial importance in industrial relations to understand what happens as a result of the introduction of new techniques. The members of the unions concerned undertook years of apprenticeship of the most skilled kind, expecting a lifetime career in the use of those skills. The threat to their expertise and craft hit them very sorely. Problems arose not only because of the redundancy which would follow from the greater efficiency but because of the fundamental changes in techniques, possibly more fundamental than those concerned with the introduction of almost any other techniques in modern industry. We tried to make the changes more acceptable by retraining. We believe that change is, and should be, an ally, but it must be understood that the position of people whose skill has been acquired over many years poses great problems.
I turn to the question of the present production of the telephone directories and the settlement of the dispute. Phase 3 problems arose throughout industry, and the rigidities inherent in this method of trying to determine income posed particular difficulties for the Stationery Office. When trying to introduce a new technique, the last thing one wants is the rigidity of pay control. One tries to do a deal with people anxious about their future. The only way to settle their anxiety is by having the maximum amount of flexibility available. One can settle their natural anxiety and also seek to make long-term changes in pay structure to enable a number of things to be possible which may not otherwise follow.
When there is in existence a pay control which says rigidly that pay cannot be increased by more than X per cent. one cannot do a long-term deal, without which no rearrangement or restructuring

will be possible. That is the reason for the difficulties in HMSO. Those difficulties are closely connected and indeed intimately associated with the viewpoint of the Conservatives and the legacy which they left us involving rigidities of pay and lack of flexibility. When the hon. Gentleman referred—and rightly referred—to the problems of the Department of Employment in trying to reach an understanding, he left out the fact that the law of the country precluded the kind of arrangement which should have been possible. Up to the past few days that flexibility has been denied to negotiators and the fact that we have been unable to reach any kind of agreement is a direct consequence of that legislation.
We must remember that a system of rigid pay controls works well in industries which do not change and which year by year continue to produce the same articles and to use the same methods. In such an industry it is easy to compare one person's work with another, but the system is negated in an industry where change occur constantly. In an industry, such as HMSO, where printing presses are involved and where there are fundamental changes affecting the basis of a worker's skill and his future and where the maximum amount of flexibility will be required, the phase 3 regulations hit most severely.
The view of the Stationery Office is that when we are able to resolve the outstanding issues successfully the production of telephone directories will be undertaken at Harrow. Workers will continue on the same scale as previously and there will be an opportunity in future for increased output—which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome in the interests of his constituents.
With regard to the ending of the problems which we have had to face, it must be said that the conclusion of phase 3 and the passing of the rigidities involved will mean that negotiations will now take place. I look forward to discussions aimed at reaching a solution of these serious matters.
The hon. Gentleman sought to compare the Stationery Office printing presses with the situation in newspaper production, particularly newspapers in London. He was right to say that it is not easy to isolate problems in the printing industry


in the London area. We saw the problems experienced at IPC in Watford, for example, and those in the newspaper industry in London. In passing, I point out that the Sun did not appear this morning. We are not immune from changes of this kind. In fact the very basis of the way in which the Stationery Office works is rather one of comparison than of setting trends in the commercial printing world, and that means that this is an even more important factor than would otherwise be the case.
Phase 3 has ended. Negotiations will take place. I hope that they will be conducted in a spirit of good will and with the understanding that many more opportunities are available in the negotiations which will start this week than were available last week. In view of those factors, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find himself able to welcome the ending of phase 3 and the difficulties that it brought about.

Orders of the Day — MR. BRIAN WALL

3.46 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: I wish to raise a constituency matter which has been worrying me for some time.
Mr. Brian Wall, of 66 Camp Lane, Birmingham, was arrested on 27th November last year at Algeciras in Southern Spain on suspicion of a drugs charge. To this day he has not been brought to trial.
It is not unknown in this country for there to be considerable delays of this kind. Those of us who have dealings with the courts know this only too well. Often cases of complexity take a long time to reach trial here. However a number of aspects of this case give rise to grave concern. The first is that not only has Mr. Wall not yet been brought to trial but that there is no immediate prospect of it.
On 27th November last year Mr. Wall was arrested. The following month, he was transferred to Cadiz prison. On 4th April of this year, the trial was fixed in Spain, and then we learned that it had been put off because the public prosecutor in charge of the trial needed more information. In saying that, I use the phrase which appears in a letter on the

subject addressed to me by my right hon. Friend. It is dated 26th April, and it comments quite reasonably that
… the Spanish authorities take a serious view of drug offences, and the legal procedure for dealing with them is long and complicated.
Of course, that is perfectly true. But there must be a limit.
I remind the House that already eight months have passed. Not only has Mr. Wall not been tried, but no date has been fixed firmly for his trial. What makes the position more serious is the fact that, since the courts in Spain have the same kind of long vacation as our own higher courts, there is little or no prospect of Mr. Wall being brought to trial until the autumn. Indeed, he may have been held in custody for a year before these matters can be determined. To those who are steeped in the tradition of believing that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty, this becomes a most offensive situation.
My hon. Friend, in his letter of 26th April, said that he understood at that time that there was some suggestion of Mr. Wall being granted provisional liberty. I suppose that is the equivalent of bail. To my knowledge, that possibility has not come to fruition, and there is little prospect of it occurring.
My hon. Friend, in letters to me and in answer to Questions, said, understandably, that the Government would be reluctant to be seeming to interfere with the internal processes of justice in another country, even in a country—my words, not his, but I think that he would share them—whose political system most of us would find offensive.
But there comes a time when it is necessary for Her Majesty's Government to speak loud and clear and forcibly, even at the risk of causing offence, in protecting one of Her Majesty's subjects abroad. The hallowed wording of the passport talks about giving assistance where it is needed to any of Her Majesty's subjects. This is just such an occasion when that assistance needs to be invoked.
I had hoped—this is not a criticism of my hon. Friend; I hope that he will accept it in that spirit—that this would be resolvable, as it were, behind the scenes. Unfortunately, that has not proved possible. I believe that, even at the risk


of causing some diplomatic offence, it is right that I should raise this matter on the Floor of the House.
I make only one more point. I am not, nor could I be, concerned with whether the charges are right. I am concerned solely with the issue that a person who is incarcerated on suspicion of charges should be brought to trial as expeditiously as possible. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would address himself to that matter.

3.54 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) for the various items of notice that he has given in letters and Written Questions that this matter was in the forefront of his mind and was inevitably—I do not wish to sound patronising—properly a subject for an Adjournment debate.
I understand many of the feelings expressed by my hon. Friend. I understand how he rightly insists—an insistence that I share—that Mr. Brian Roger Wall remains innocent of charges unless and until he is convicted. I also understand his concern that his constituent—therefore, almost a constituent of mine—should find himself in this situation. I have the greatest sympathy for the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend, but my duty is to describe the situation as it is and to describe the powers possessed by Her Majesty's Government, the Foreign Office and its representatives as they are. It is, therefore, necessary for me to begin by describing in a little detail the circumstances which surrounded Mr. Wall's arrest and to analyse as best I can the powers available to the Foreign Office to expedite the processes of his trial.
As the House knows from what my hon. Friend said in the few moments when, unfortunately, I was not in the House, Mr. Wall was arrested on 27th November 1973. He and his companion who had driven with him from Morocco were arrested when they arrived at Algeciras. It was said that he was suspected of being connected with the illegal importation of drugs into Spain and it was alleged that he had on his person seven kilograms of liquid hashish.
That arrest was the result of the arrest on the previous day of two other United Kingdom citizens who, as far as we know, had implicated Mr. Wall and his companion at the time of their arrest or shortly afterwards, when they both made a statement implicating or accusing Mr. Wall and his companion. Both or one of them said that drugs were hidden in the car and the Spanish police were, therefore, awaiting the arrival of Mr. Wall, who on his arrest and formal charging absolutely and totally denied complicity in what the persons previously arrested had suggested.
Two days later, on 29th November, the British Vice-Consul attended the police station and offered to act as interpreter and to deal with any language difficulties that arose. Four days later, on 3rd December, the Consul visited Mr. Wall and asked him what assistance he needed and in what way the British Government could be of assistance to him in his time of difficulty. Mr. Wall said that he had engaged a lawyer, that the processes of law were about to continue in a way that is typical of Spanish justice and that his lawyer was representing his interests in the normal way.
On 30th December all the prisoners on that charge, that is, Mr. Wall, his companion and the two men who were arrested the previous day and who had implicated Mr. Wall, were transferred to the Cadiz prison to await the processes of prosecution which are particular to Spanish justice where there are accusations concerning the importation and selling of drugs.
According to Spanish justice, trials involving the importation and selling of drugs fall into two parts. The first is a hearing before what is described as a contraband tribunal. The penalty if the case is proved is a fine for the importation of an illegal substance. The second process of law under Spanish jurisdiction relevant to such accusations is a hearing before a court of social danger at which a second charge is made concerning the endangering of public health. Therefore, on being charged with this offence Mr. Wall was subject to prosecution in two distinct forms.
In the first form, that is, the charge before the contraband tribunal for importation of an illegal substance, it was expected that the hearing would be on


7th February 1974. That process has been postponed for valuation of the hashish which it is alleged Mr. Wall brought into Spain. The fine on such a charge, if it is proved, is dependent on the valuation of the substance brought in. Therefore, according to Spanish law there needs to be time for the content of the substances to be analysed. The adjournment on 7th February was for valuation, and the adjournment continues. On the second charge—that is, Mr. Wall's arraignment before a court of special danger, a charge which should have been answered by 4th April, an adjournment was made indefinitely on, I am advised, the normal basis that until the first case is heard the second can hardly continue.
That is a description of the legal processes as they have gone so far. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who spends much of his time practising law in this country, will describe that as a prolonged or protracted process.

Mr. Lee: I would indeed.

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend confirms exactly that. Sharing in part that belief, the lawyer who represented Mr. Wall applied in both April and June this year for provisional release, suggesting that, for complications considering the valuation and for applications which flowed from that which resulted in the postponement of the second hearing, it was unreasonable that Mr. Wall should remain in prison while the valuation was made and both hearings were held up. Neither of those applications was accepted. The provisional release was not granted. Mr. Wall remains in prison facing, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the prospect of remaining there until the summer recess is over, but he is, I hope and believe, likely to answer the charges immediately that recess is completed.

Mr. Lee: Do we know a date? Will they be tried one after the other very quickly?

Mr. Hattersley: I fear that we do not know a date. That is why I am careful to say that I think that it will be shortly after the summer recess. But I should be deceiving my hon. Friend if I were to suggest that we have some clear indication of when that date will be. The point that he asks and my answer to it—which I fear he will regard as unconvincing and unsatisfactory—demonstrates the dilemma

which the Foreign Office faces in all issues of this kind. My hon. Friend has described us as reluctant to intervene. He said that with generosity. My argument with that remark is that it is not a reluctance to intervene which characterises Foreign Office behaviour but an inability to intervene.
Representing, as I do, the Foreign Office, under the Foreign Secretary, I am concerned with our relations with Western Europe. Perhaps some of my colleagues are more closely concerned with Governments and States whose processes of law are unacceptable in terms of the constitution of this country and the standards of this House. Nevertheless I am constantly faced with letters from hon. Members concerning the law's delays in Europe and the strange processes of these laws as compared with British standards, and often these letters are concerned with complaints about delays and what seems to hon. Members to be arbitrary imprisonment and unacceptable standards of justice, and unacceptable speeds of the processes of justice.
I fear that that is the situation that we face in Spain. I think that my hon. Friend accepts that his comments on the régime in Spain do not in any way differ from my judgments. I hope that he understands that I regard it as not simply undesirable but deplorable that a man should have been arrested on 27th December 1973 and should not yet have come to trial.
I hope that my hon. Friend understands that in this instance, as in many others in other countries, the Foreign Office offers its services and support to British nationals who face this difficulty. But the Foreign Office is faced with what is in many ways an insurmountable difficulty. Mr. Wall has properly engaged a lawyer to conduct his interests. That lawyer is properly and inevitably going through the Spanish courts and expecting and accepting the disciplines imposed upon him by the Spanish system of judgments, which traditionally and by convention—and not only by convention but by precedent—says two things. It says, first, that there is the dual trial of drug offences. Experience suggests that both these trials take place over a protracted period. It also says that it is extremely rare for a person who is accused of drug


offences to be allowed out on the application for provisional release between the accusation and the eventual hearing of his case.
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that, irrespective of Mr. Wall's innocence or guilt—my hon. Friend and I are agreed that at the present moment Mr. Wall is innocent and remains so until and unless he is convicted by a Spanish court—he is under the jurisdiction of Spanish law. That law requires him to go through the processes which are common and peculiar to Spain. That applies much as we may regret the fact that in this case and in other cases the processes take so long.
Our records show that there are 66 United Kingdom citizens who are in detention in Spain. Of these, only 25 have had their legal processes completed and have been sentenced, if found guilty, or released if found innocent. The remaining 41 await trial. That, I fear, is the inevitable feature of the way in which the law works in Spain. It is a feature which applies to Spaniards and British citizens when it is alleged that they have committed an offence in Spain which makes them subject to Spanish law. What it is not possible to do is to ask the Spanish Government to give any one of the 41 cases awaiting trial some sort of preferential treatment or priority.
It is not possible for my right hon. Friend or for Her Majesty's Ambassador in Spain to ask that Mr. Wall somehow be promoted to the head of the judicial queue in Spain. We may express our regret that he has remained untried and unconvicted for what may amount to almost a year before the case comes to court. I fear that the powers of Her Majesty's Government to intervene are at best limited and at worst non-existent. I can assure my hon. Friend that the services of Her Majesty's Consul to advise and assist remain open to Mr. Wall.
Mr. Wall has a lawyer employed privately and in a civil capacity to represent his case. As we understand it, he is doing so adequately according to the tenets of Spanish law, but that lawyer, like Mr. Wall and like Her Majesty's Government, is constrained by the requirements of Spanish law. There is nothing that we can do to side-step, accelerate or

change the Spanish process. However, it is possible—I say this without in any way prejudicing the case that now faces Mr. Wall and his associates—to remind British tourists that laws relating to drugs and associated matters arouse considerable passion with the Spanish authorities. The prospects of their taking anything like a lenient view of such matters are deeply remote. That is why we have gone out of our way to remind tourists and holiday makers in Spain of the Spanish attitude.
I make that comment whilst in no way suggesting that Mr. Wall is guilty. I do so to remind tourists and holiday makers that should they be guilty of an offence or charged with an offence—we know that Mr. Wall is charged although we do not know that he is guilty—they are likely to face the same problems and difficulties that now face Mr. Wall—namely, two trials, a protracted period in prison and the inability of Her Majesty's Government to do anything other than offer the legal advice and consular services which are inherent in the possession of a British passport.
I hope that my hon. Friend, Mr. Wall and his relations will understand that it is not simply difficult but impossible to do more than that which I have described. I look forward to hearing when the House reassembles that Mr. Wall has come to trial. I hope that I shall then be able to report to my hon. Friend that the processes of the Spanish law have been completed.

Orders of the Day — Mr. B. J. MOODY

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I would ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) to finish at 4.35 p.m.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I shall try to keep within that time limit, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful for having the opportunity to air this matter and to raise it on the Floor of the House. In doing so I am honouring an undertaking that was given to Mr. B. J. Moody by my predecessor.
Mr. Moody is now headmaster of San-down High School, Isle of Wight, and one of my constituents. On 9th March


1971 he was headmaster of Maidstone Grammar School. He was then aged 44. He received a personal letter from Mr. K. Ellender, of the Ministry of Defence, drawing his attention to a vacancy for the post of Director of Studies at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. It was suggested that he might be a suitable candidate. The details of the post were enclosed and he was invited to apply, although it was, quite correctly, made clear that no undertaking was given that he would be successful.
I quote initially from the form, reference No. 212463/A/SL which is relevant to the case. This was the curriculum for the Director of Studies in February-March 1971. It says:
The Director of Studies is responsible to the Commandant for the organisation of all academic work done by Cadets at the Academy. His staff consists of an Assistant Director, five Heads of Departments (Principal Lecturers) an Academic Registrar, and about 68 Senior Lecturers and Lecturers. About 700 cadets, some of whom are from Commonwealth and foreign countries, are at present receiving their academic and professional instruction at Sandhurst, the 2-year course is so arranged that the 1st, 5th and 6th terms are almost entirely military and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th terms are academic. Cadets enter the Academy between the ages of 18 and 20 years, and between one-third and a half go on to university degree training after commissioning. Work done in the academic field embraces war studies, mathematics, physics and chemistry, modern languages, and political and social studies … Candidates should preferably be under 50 years of age. They must have a degree, preferably with first or second-class honours. Teaching experience at a boys' boarding school, or teaching or administrative experience in a university is desirable.
The post was carrying a salary of £5,500. Later we find that the appointment was for an initial trial period of a year before confirmation. There are other various bits and pieces of information about the job.
On 8th June 1971 Mr. Moody was formally offered the appointment in a letter from the Ministry of Defence signed by Dr. J. F. Alder. This was a considerable achievement because, as I understand it, there were 150 applicants interviewed over a two-day period, which was some going. Mr. Moody made arrangements to leave Maidstone and was due to take up his new post on 1st January 1972.
On 2nd December 1971, long after he had given in his notice at Maidstone and burnt his boats he was extremely sur-

prised to receive the following letter from Major-General Philip Tower, at that time Commandant at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. I will quote from that letter and one enclosed with it.
The letter from Major-General Tower said:
My dear Bernard, I don't know how much, if anything, you have heard about the progress of the Review of Officer Cadet Training sponsored by the Director of Army Training. I forward a copy of it and the covering letter I have received from the Director of Army Training. I feel both embarrassed and unhappy in doing so, as you will see when you read the Report, but these matters are well above my sphere of responsibility.
Enclosed was a letter from Major-General Patterson, Director of Army Training. It draws attention to the fact that the review of officer cadet training had been completed and that:
Michael Howard is calling an Extraordinary General Meeting of the RMAS Academic Advisory Council on 13th January 1972,"—
at least a fortnight after Mr. Moody had taken up his position—
to discuss the implications of the Working Party's Report. By that date of course Mr. Moody will have assumed his appointment … No doubt you will emphasise that the Report remains a privileged document distributed on a personal and in confidence basis and that it is still under consideration. No decision concerning the implementation of these proposals has yet been taken by the Army Board.
From this correspondence it came to light that a review of the general duties and the whole nature of the post which Mr. Moody had accepted had been under way when the position had been offered and accepted, but no mention of the likely impending changes in the curriculum had been conveyed to him or, for that matter, to any of the other candidates. The position was substantially changed from being largely an educational post to one connected more with training. From being an open-ended task it became one of supervising a 17½ weeks' crash course with much greater emphasis on the military side.
A prospectus published in 1973, when Mr. Moody left Sandhurst and a successor was appointed, illustrates some of the points I have been trying to make. It states:
As at present planned, there are three types of courses involving academic work:

(a) A Regular Career Course for all young officers wishing to gain a Regular Commission; it includes 17½ Weeks of academic work.


(b) The equivalent of four weeks' academic work in each of the shorter courses for graduate entries.
(c) Preparation of up to 130 candidates annually far places at universities and at the Royal Military College of Science.

In the Regular Career Course and the Graduates Course, the subjects studied are War Studies, Military Technology, Contemporary Affairs, and Communications and Comprehension.
That was a distinct change from the curriculum published when Mr. Moody took the job.
My constituent's grievance is that the post, which comes within the general responsibility of the Director of Army Training, was already being reviewed at the time that interviews for the job were taking place. Indeed, the review body had already met. This body was chaired by the Deputy Director of Army Training and had terms of reference which made it clear that at that time there was every intention of changing the scope and nature of the job. This should have been communicated to my constituent, but it was not. The fact that the commanding officer was embarrassed, to say the least, is made clear from the letter which I quoted earlier.
The upshot was that Mr. Moody became frustrated because the job was very different from what he was entitled to expect. He almost did not take up the post and it was only after being persuaded to do so that he went ahead. He left in 1973 and took over the headship of Sandown High School and received an ex gratia payment of £380. Although that payment was a tacit admission and acknowledgment, it in no way compensates him for the substantial loss of income and capital he has suffered. He has also lost important opportunities to further his career. He had to withdraw from the short list for the principal post at St. Luke's College of Education, Exeter. He had a good chance of getting that job. He has suffered a great deal of worry, his wife has had to give up her teaching appointment and his four children's academic careers have undergone abrupt changes because he had to make several moves within a short period.
But, more important, he was forced to purchase a property. There was a house with the job at Sandhurst. He had

to look for a house in the Isle of Wight at a time of high prices in housing, and as a consequence his whole standard of living has suffered.
Attempts to compensate Mr. Moody with a more equitable payment have been made by a number of people, among them Lord Beeching, as well as my predecessor and myself, and even the Parliamentary Commissioner has been approached. I believe that the facts of the case should be publicised, and I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will agree that Mr. Moody has received harsh treatment and that he should be compensated in a far more magnanimous way.
Surely it is not yet too late for second thoughts. It is well known how people holding senior posts in industry and local government have been rewarded for loss of office in cases in which the terms or conditions of the office have been changed and they have been unable to take on the new work. Clearly, Mr. Moody is deserving of similar consideration.

4.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd): It is appropriate, at the end of a very taxing and long summer Session, that we should find time in the House to discuss an issue of such importance to the individual concerned. This seems to me to be a reassuring dimension of our parliamentary affairs.
I am sure that we all congratulate the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) on having put the case so firmly, expressing his anxiety that justice should be done. I assure him that I have carefully noted what he has to say and that it will be conveyed to my hon. Friend, who, by virtue of his membership of another place, is unable to answer the debate himself. I should also emphasise that this all happened under a previous administration, but, of course, we have been at pains in the present Government to go into the case in detail to see exactly what the story is as recognised from the standpoint of the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Moody's complaint relates to his appointment as Director of Studies at Sandhurst in 1971. The first point which needs to be made is that the Director of Studies has a very responsible job in Army education. He has charge of a


staff of between 70 and 80 lecturers, who teach a very wide range of subjects. The students range from young men who have recently left the sixth form at school to young graduates—all highly intelligent and all highly motivated. This is the situation as it is today.
It was equally the situation when Mr. Moody was appointed. I make this point now to emphasise that we are talking about a very important post indeed. I should also make the point firmly at the outset that nothing which has happened between the Ministry of Defence and Mr. Moody alters the view in the Department that he is an extremely able man whose services it was sorry to lose. The fact that he and the Department were unable to agree on what was the best form of training for the cadets at Sandhurst does not alter this fact one iota.
The Civil Service Commission advertised the post of Director of Studies at Sandhurst in 1971 in readiness for the retirement of the previous holder of the post. In addition to the normal public advertisement, a number of teachers of distinction, of whom Mr. Moody was one, were suggested by the Department of Education and Science as likely to be suitable. In this sense, Mr. Moody was invited to apply, but his application was considered by the commission on all fours with the other 145—not 150—applications. In due course, Mr. Moody received an offer of appointment for a period of five years in the first instance, with the possibility of an extension at the end of that time.
While all this was going on, a working party was studying officer cadet training at Sandhurst. This is something that the Department has found that it has had to do from time to time if Service training is to match both the needs of the Service and the needs of the potential officers it recruits. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that point.
It is the burden of Mr. Moody's complaint that he was not told that this review was in progress at the time he was interviewed for the post, or for some time after he had accepted it. I want to make it plain that I believe that he certainly should have been told that the review was in progress, but, in fairness to those making the appointment, he could not have been told at that stage precisely what

changes were likely to result from the working party's deliberations.
Mr. Moody accepted the appointment in June 1971. The working party did not report until October of that year, and its conclusions, after considerable modification in the light of advice from the Academic Advisory Council and others, were not finally accepted by the Army Board until May 1972. Mr. Moody was both given a copy of the report in December 1971 and seen by the then Adjutant-General and the then Permanent Under-Secretary of State (Administration), who, I gather, mentioned it to him, shortly before he actually took up his appointment. He immediately made it clear that he disagreed strongly with what was being recommended. But by this time he had resigned from his previous post and had no option but to take up the post of Director of Studies in a situation with which he felt in strong disagreement.
I repeat that everyone with whom I have spoken now agrees that it would have been better had Mr. Moody been warned that the scheme of education at Sandhurst was under review. He would at least have then been able to decline the offer in the light of the uncertainty about precisely what would have been expected of him. Once he understood the new situation. Mr. Moody decided to look for an alternative post, and he eventually secured his present appointment in the Isle of Wight and left Sandhurst in July 1973.
Mr. Moody feels very strongly that he was appointed by the Ministry of Defence under false pretences. He has since been arguing with great force a claim for compensation for the financial loss he has suffered through a double move. The Department has certainly not felt able to meet this claim.
There seem to be two salient points to be considered. First, the scheme of education eventually introduced was certainly different from what Mr. Moody had been expecting or felt able to agree with. We accept that. But the post still involved the responsibility for taking 400 to 500 young men through an academic course of four to five months' duration. It involved responsibility for a large teaching staff, who, in addition to class work, are expected to play a more general rôle in the functioning of Sandhurst. No


employers when appointing a man to a post can guarantee that, whatever happens, the functions will remain the same for all time. Anyone occupying a position of responsibility must be prepared to accommodate himself to change, though in the last resort he obviously has the right to resign if he disapproves too strongly of what has been done.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind words about Mr. Moody. Sandhurst's loss is the Isle of Wight's gain. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's sympathetic treatment of the matter. But educationists have high standards and it is understandable that a man with certain standards, having such a change as this thrust upon him, should stick to his guns. It is not fair to say that one should automatically accept such changes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is so, particularly in the case of educational changes?

Mr. Judd: I am not accepting that someone of Mr. Moody's eminence and ability should automatically accept changes. It is for him to decide whether he should accept them and to take whatever course is appropriate. I shall deal in a moment with some of the other points implied in the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
Mr. Moody felt—and no one in the Ministry of Defence has doubted his sincerity in this matter—that he had no option but to resign because he found the changes unacceptable. However, I emphasise what I have already said, that from our standpoint the post is still of the highest order, demanding the highest ability of the person who fills it and carrying a great deal of responsibility for the quality of training and education at Sandhurst.
When Mr. Moody told the Department that he was going to resign the post was readvertised. The Department asked for the same qualifications and offered the same salary. This advertisement attracted some 70 applications, from which a further appointment was made.
Secondly, in submitting his claim for reimbursement, Mr. Moody is asking for special treatment which goes quite outside normal Civil Service regulations. The

present regulations permit no financial assistance to anyone joining the Civil Service for the first time, nor to anyone moving on resignation from the service. Mr. Moody, therefore, has no right to any reimbursement from public funds. Nevertheless, in recognition of the fact that he was not put fully in the picture when he was first appointed, he has been given a special ex-gratia payment of £380.
The figure is calculated assuming that Mr. Moody was a civil servant before his appointment to Sandhurst, and amounts to the normal transfer grants and allowances which civil servants would receive on making a move of this nature. This is as far as the Department felt the matter could go in the circumstances—remembering that Mr. Moody resigned of his own choice from what is by any standard a satisfying and responsible educational post. It has not been possible to agree that he should be reimbursed for such items as school fees, travel expenses, loss of his wife's salary, and loss of value of such items as carpets and curtains from his previous house which were of no use in the official house allocated to him at Sandhurst.
I appreciate Mr. Moody's feeling that he should have been taken more into the Department's confidence when he was first appointed. I emphatically agree that it would have been better had this been done. But it was his decision to resign. He has already had an ex-gratia payment outside normal Civil Service practice in recognition of the situation. It does not appear possible to go any further than that, but, naturally, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will represent fully to my ministerial colleagues the points that he has made so lucidly and firmly this afternoon.
In giving these assurances I should like to take the opportunity of wishing the hon. Gentleman a good and refreshing recess in preparation for any political trials that may lie ahead.

Mr. Stephen Ross: May I return the hon. Gentleman's wishes. I would point out to him that £380 will just about cover Mr. Moody's conveyancing costs in respect of the new house.

Mr. Judd: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that under existing regulations it was not a payment which Mr.


Moody had any right to receive. It was made in recognition of the special circumstances.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the good wishes apply to all.

Orders of the Day — CARAVAN DWELLERS (NORTHOLT)

4.32 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: The subject matter of the debate relates to an evil and distasteful threat to the peace of mind of many of my constituents and their families. It arises out of the behaviour of certain caravan dwellers who temporarily reside in the London Borough of Ealing and who, it would appear, are able quite freely to break laws passed by Parliament. It is right and proper to bring these matters to Parliament's attention.
People in the West End ward and in Mandeville ward in my constituency of Ealing, North in the past nine or 10 months have witnessed a growing threat to their peace of mind. I should like briefly to outline what has happened to date. Ealing Council was asked to provide land for caravan dwellers in the London Borough of Ealing. The Ealing Council, under Section 6 of the Caravan Sites Act, claimed exemption by letter to the Ministry of Housing on 28th September 1970. They received a reply from the then Minister on 28th September 1973—which for a Conservative administration was not bad going. The Ministry said that it would be necessary to afford the Gipsy Council and the Romany Guild, the two principal bodies representing gipsy interests, the opportunity of commenting on the council's case for exemption. The letter outlined that the council would be given the opportunity of commenting on any representations made by the two gipsy bodies.
The people causing distress in my constituency are not gipsies as we know them; they are not Romanies. They are people who do not abide by the rule of law. They are car smashers. They live a peculiar way of life. Furthermore, they appear to be associated with everything that is mean and dirty.
Nevertheless in 1973 the council was aware that a number of these caravans had arrived on Department of the

Environment land at Wayfarers Estate, Northolt. Understandably there was considerable friction between members of the local community and the caravan dwellers. In March 1974 the leader of the council wrote to the Secretary of State and asked for help.
On 11th April 1974, together with the leader of the council, Councillor John Telford, and a representative of other councillors and of the people, Councillor Kenneth Haycock, I met my hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government with members of the Hillingdon Council, tenants' associations and representatives from both Ealing and Hillingdon in connection with this caravan dwellers' problem which existed on Yeading Green Estate. The Minister assured us that as soon as the Ealing Council provided a temporary site which it proposed for 16 caravans, the Yeading Green site would be cleared, and that he would take all necessary action to ensure this.
In April of this year, the Ealing Council authorised the setting up of a temporary site for 16 caravans at Kensington Road, Northolt. Approximately £7,500 was spent on the provision of the site. On 5th March, the council had resolved as a matter of policy to provide a permanent site under Section 6 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, and it instructed its officers to report upon the feasibility and cost of finding a suitable site.
Then the leader of the council and other councillors met the Gipsy Council in May, and it was agreed that the rent for each standing on the temporary site would be £2·50 per caravan.
The temporary site was excellently prepared, but in the meantime it has been heavily vandalised, and the 12 temporary toilets which the council provided at a cost of £1,000 have been destroyed. No rent has been paid by any of the caravan dwellers, with the exception of the first week when two or three paid. Even these payments have now ceased.
The council's officers can exercise no control over these caravan dwellers, and council officers as well as my constituents have been threatened by these caravan dwellers with physical violence. Car breaking is being carried out on the site and on the sides of streets. The drainage


ditches have been partly filled with rubbish. The water pipes which the council provided to enable these caravan dwellers to have water have been smashed and destroyed.
I hope that the House will understand the anger and bitterness in both the Mandeville and West End wards in my constituency. Only last week the secretary of the parent-teacher association of the Northolt Primary School approached me because some of these tinkers or caravan dwellers had pitched a few caravans near the school and in consequence there was human excreta and urine in the environs of that little school through which children had to pass. The association asked the town hall to act.
I got on to the Ealing Council, and the council acted. On 26th July I received the following letter from the London Borough of Ealing:
Dear Mr. Molloy, thank you very much for your help yesterday with regard to the caravan owners. You will be pleased to know they moved late yesterday afternoon
They moved a mile up the road and started to create havoc for people who live in Northolt Village.
Northolt Village is a pleasant, picturesque place in my constituency, part of it being in the West End ward and part in the Mandeville ward. Since these caravan dwellers have been operating their nefarious activities in Northolt Village and its environs there has been an increase in stealing. Illegal scrap metal dealing is conducted on the sides of the verges. There has been a distasteful increase in human excreta and urination on the grass verges near people's houses. What is perhaps more serious is that there have been instances of children being molested. In short, the quality of life of ordinary people in that part of my constituency has been threatened, degraded and debased by the activities of these people.
The police, too, are frustrated. They have given of their best. They know the problem and have taken every possible action. However, they find themselves frustrated because of the wording of the law. I understand that in addition to doing their level best—people in Ealing, North appreciate that the police are doing their best—the police are frustrated be-because they have been informed that the

local courts cannot entertain summonses pursued by the police against these caravan dwellers until next February.
People living in Northolt Village and Yeading Green are decent and hard-working folk. They are both jealous and proud of their homes and the communities in which they live. They are also tolerant and understanding. It is only because of the ever-increasing threats to their standards of life that they are now protesting. Because of the activities of these caravan dwellers their lives are invaded by frustration and annoyance. They are beginning to get heartily sick and tired of the vulgar behaviour of the caravan dwellers and the inability of anyone in authority to do anything about the situation.
Therefore, I have decided to raise this matter on the Floor of the House of Commons. I ask my hon. Friend to seek co-operative action, which is urgently needed, with his Department, the Ealing, Council and the Gipsy Council. In passing, I suggest that the Gipsy Council is in need of some examination. It is neither co-operative nor helpful. In my judgment, it should be abolished and something else put in its place. Nevertheless, if my hon. Friend will get together with the Ealing Council, the local police and councillors, I believe that the problem can be resolved. Indeed, it must be resolved.
There is an insolence among these caravan dwellers that they can get away with murder, and they have proved it. The object of my appeal today is to get an assurance for the people not only of Northolt Village, but everywhere in my constituency, that their lives shall not be blemished by the rude, crude behaviour of these caravan dwellers. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider my demands. My prime objective is to restore peace of mind to the people whom I represent in Parliament.

4.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I have the dubious honour and privilege of being the first Minister in this Government not to be in his place to reply to an Adjournment debate. Therefore, it is divine retribution that I should reply to the final Adjournment debate of the Session.
I am delighted to reply to a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member


for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). I have never ceased to be amazed at the forceful way, either by Questions, Adojurnment debates or strongly worded letters to my Department, that he presses for better conditions for those whom he calls "his people" in Ealing, North. People often talk about the harassment of gipsies. My hon. Friend often harasses my Department, rightly, in the interests of his constituents. I congratulate him on ingeniously bringing this problem to the Floor of the House.
My hon. Friend has described some of the activities of caravan dwellers which have been reported to him. I must deal with the national as well as the local position. I make clear to my hon. Friend, to the House and through the House to the Gipsy Council, and to the individual caravan dwellers, that illegal behaviour of this nature does no good to the cause of caravan dwellers, who need the co-operation and assistance of local authorities and local communities for the provision of sites. If sites provided by district councils or county councils for the accommodation of caravan dwellers are wrecked, the job of the Government, the local authorities and the Gipsy Council becomes worse. There can be no approval for law breaking of that nature.
The problem of caravan dwellers and gipsy encampments is a national one, I appreciate that Ealing is in considerable difficulty at present. The Department has been concerned at the disappointingly slow progress made by local authorities in providing sites for gipsy caravans. Only about 30 per cent. of the gipsy families in England and Wales can be accommodated on official sites and, apart from a handful of private sites, the remainder—over 3,000 families—must perforce camp where they can.
If the local authority in Ealing had decided in 1970, when the 1968 Act came into force, to provide a site for 15 caravans in implementation of its limited duty under the Act, it might now have applied successfully for a designation order, which would have given it more effective powers for dealing with unathorised encampments in its area.
My hon. Friend says that these caravan dwellers do not live by rule of law. To some extent I accept what he says, but to some extent I ask for his compassion

in saying that many of these people automatically break the law by their very existence when they move on the road. They are trespassers, they are in breach of planning, public health, highways, civic amenities and other laws. Their encampments usually lack sanitary, water and refuse disposal arrangements, causing both hardship to the gipsies themselves and offence to local residents. The latter and some local authorities—and indeed hon. Members—tend to see the solution as being simply to move the gipsies on. The Government, however, are bound to see the matter in the broad national perspective, which makes it clear that needlessly moving gipsies on when there is no official site to move them to does not solve the problem but merely shifts it from one place to another.
The Government regard a continuance of the present state of affairs as an intolerable prospect. They instituted a searching review of the operation of Part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 since it came into effect in April 1970 which both re-examined the basic premises underlying the Act and considered what steps are open to the Government to speed up progress, with site provision.
First, we reconsidered the basic premise of the Act that responsibility for site provision should rest with local authorities. It could be argued that the failure of local authorities to implement the 1968 Act quickly enough and the fact that Governments incur much of the odium for the consequences suggest that it might be better if Governments were to assume full responsibility for dealing with the problem. This was, in fact, considered before the 1968 Act was drafted and the main conclusions then reached still seem valid.
The primary issue is one of accommodation, which is analogous to the housing function of local authorities. This, in itself, raises planning issues which are predominantly local in character, but, beyond that, there are major welfare problems and the need to provide education in some form for gipsy children in the hope that the next generation may be more susceptible to integration with the settled community.

Mr. Molloy: In fairness to Ealing Council, the House should knew that the council provided a temporary site,


equipped it with about 15 toilets and provided it with water and all the normal amenities required for a good caravan site. However, within a week those for whom it had been provided smashed it up.

Mr. Oakes: My hon. Friend will know what I have said previously about such matters, and I have great sympathy with the point he makes. Where site provision is made by a local authority in this way and that sort of thing happens, I reiterate what I have said to the Gipsy Council and other bodies concerned with these matters: this can do nothing but harm to the gipsies themselves, and not only those who engage in the vandalism but all travelling people throughout the country. The Government cannot tolerate the deliberate destruction of amenities provided at cost to the public by a local authority.
I am trying to give a broad picture of the sort of problems which we inevitably must face when dealing with 3,000 families who have no site of their own to which to go and must perforce illegally be on a site somewhere because there is no official site provided by the county.
I was mentioning the problem of education so that there may be more susceptibility to integration of the next generation into the community as a whole. Indeed, experience shows that the most successful gipsy sites are those in which many departments of the local authorities, including social services and education, have been fully involved right from the design stage. This all suggests that the job is pre-eminently one for the local authorities and not for central Government. In the long run a gipsy site provided by locally elected representatives may have a much better chance of acceptance by the public in the area than one imposed upon the locality by the Government or by some national body.
We concluded, therefore, that a Part II of the 1968 Act has been operating for only a little over four years it seemed inadvisable to abadon its basic provision unless and until it was clear that all possible ways of making it work had been exhausted. There has been, in particular, strong pressure for amendment of the Act to provide that part only of a county should be eligible for designation under

Section 12 when adequate provision has been made there, thus strengthening the power of the authorities to remove unauthorised encampments from that part. This suggestion has been carefully considered but it would raise considerable difficulties, and it is by no means clear that the provision would be as helpful as its proponents expect. Various other suggestions for amendment of the Act were also considered but it was concluded that it is preferable to leave matters as they are, under the control of local authorities, because there is a greater likelihood of public acceptance.
Our clear impression from our experience of the operation of the Act is that the most common cause of the lack of progress by local authorities in site provision lies in failures of understanding and communication. Authorities clearly need advice both as to the general nature and national dimension of the problem with which they are required to deal and, in particular, on the selection, design and management of gipsy sites. There is, moreover, a lack of contact between local authorities and voluntary agencies, representative organisations and the local gipsies themselves. There is also an absence of the kind of regular exchange of information and experience between one authority and another which the nature of this problem demands.
The Department could, and should, play a useful advisory and co-ordinating rôle here but, as at present staffed, lacks the necessary resources. The Department therefore, intends to appoint a gipsy advisory officer. We think that the appointment of such an officer, who would have to be fully acceptable both to the gipsies and to the local authorities, is probably the most important step that the Department could take with a view to assisting local authorities to accelerate site provision. It would enable the Department to perform an advisory and co-ordinating function, which experience has shown to be required if the aims of the Act are to be achieved within a measureable period.
There are other measures that we have in mind. They could be best implemented after the appointment of the advisory officer. They include, for example, the identification of key problem areas and the agreement on a strategy for site provision following discussion with the responsible


authorities within those areas. There would be full co-operation in making available suitable Government-owned surplus land. Similarly, the Department would hope to be in a position to offer authorities more detailed advice than hitherto on ways and means of site provision and management.
The rôle of the gipsy advisory officer would be a two-way process. He would not only advise local authorities on the best provision of sites within an area but would discuss with the Gipsy Association such matters as my hon. Friend has brought to the attention of the House, and the enormously damaging consequences that they must inevitably have on the whole gipsy population.
I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the problem that we are discussing is one that is faced by every county. Some counties have made no provision for sites. That inevitably means that the neighbouring county which has made provision under the Act finds itself with a gipsy population which is far greater than it can ever cope with because of the nonfeasance, as it were, of other neighbouring authorities. The gipsy advisory officer would have a duty to describe the plight of the neighbouring county's situation to a recalcitrant county council.
I take my hon. Friend's point that a key duty of the officer would be to advise gipsies and their representative bodies of the need for good ordinary standards of community behaviour when a site is established, whether the site be temporary or permanent. That is essential if the problem is ever to be solved and if local authorities, including Ealing and others, are to continue to operate within the provisions of the 1968 Act.
My hon. Friend raised specific points relating to Ealing and the problems of his constituents. I can assure him that I shall ensure that officials of my Department at once liaise with the Ealing Council to discuss the points that he has raised. I can assure him that they will look closely at each and every matter and will ensure that my hon. Friend's constituents, who have so wisely sent him to this House, are not harassed by a population within their area which is breaking not only the law of trespass but specific laws, and doing so to their own disadvantage. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 15th October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 29th July.